£ibrar;p  oft:Ke  t:heolcgical  ^eminarjp 

PRINCETON    •    NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Gehman 

Good,  James  I.  1850-1924. 
The  Reformed  Reformation 


Tk 


e 


Reformed    Reformation 


BY 


RKV.  PROF.  JAMES  L  GOOD,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


Professor  of   Reformed   Church   History   in 
Central  Theological  Seminary 


Author  of  "Famous  Reformers  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian 
Churches,"  •'Famous  Women  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  "Famous 
Missionaries  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  Famous  Places  of  the 
Reformed  Churches,"  Origin  and  History  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Germany,"  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland 
sirice  the  Reformation,"  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
United  States,"  etc. 


THE  HEIDELBERG  PRESS 
1916 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1916 

by  Rev.  Jambs  I.  Good,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington 


PRBSS  OF    BERGER    BROTHERS 
PHILADELPHIA 


PREFACE 

This  work  has  been  pubUshed  to  meet  a  desire  by  some 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Church  for  more  material 
on  the  Reformed  side  of  the  Reformation,  which  they  might 
use  in  the  observance  of  the  Quarto-centenary  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. We  therefore  give  less  space  to  the  Lutheran  side  of 
the  Reformation;  especially  as  the  material  on  that  side  of 
the  Reformation  is  more  abundant,  and  besides  the  Lutherans, 
to  their  credit  be  it  said,  have  been  exploiting  Luther  more 
than  the  Reformed  have  been  doing  for  Zwingli  or  Calvin. 
Where  we  have  treated  of  both  sides  of  the  Reformation,  we 
have  tried  to  give  the  Lutheran  side  fairly,  but  we  have  given 
the  facts  as  they  stand  today.  We  have  no  desire  to  mini- 
mize Luther,  but  to  give  him  all  due  credit  for  the  greatness 
of  his  work.  But  Luther  is  not  the  whole  of  the  Reformation 
and  the  Reformed  should  receive  their  fair  recognition.  We 
have  also  endeavored  to  utilize  the  latest  discoveries  in  the 
history  of  the  Reformation  and  also  the  latest  publications  of, 
and  on,  that  period.  This  has  placed  somethings  in  a  new 
light.  The  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  Churches  are  especially 
interested  in  all  this,  as  they  have  come  directly  from  Zwingli 
through  Calvin.  And  we  trust  that  they  will  find  this  work 
helpful  for  the  observance  of  this  Anniversary.  We  only 
regret  the  shortness  of  time  that  we  have  had,  in  which  to 
prepare  it  so  as  to  get  it  out  before  1917.  And  we  regret 
our  inability,  on  account  of  the  war,  to  get  to  Zurich  so  as 
to  get  hold  of  more  of  the  original  sources,  though  our  own 
large  library  on  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland  has 
given  much.  That  this  book  may  have  a  share,  however  small, 
in  making  this  Anniversary  a  great  inspiration  and  blessing 
to  our  Churches  is  the  wish  of  the  author. 

James  L  Good. 


CONTENTS 

BOOK  I 

Who  Was  The  First  Reformer? 

PAGE 

Chapter      1.     Prof.  James  Lefevre  of  France 1 

Chapter     II.     Who  was  the  First  Reformer,  Luther  or  ZwingH?..     30 

Chapter  III.     Harmony   of    the    Lutheran   and    Reformed    Refor- 
mations         69 

Chapter   IV.     The    Historical     Development    of    Zwingli's    Early 

Theology    91 


BOOK    II 

The  Contribution  of  The  Reformed  to  The  Spirit  of  Protestantism 

Chapter      I.     The  Unfinished  Lutheran  Reformation  and  Its  Signi- 
ficance to  the  Reformed  lf*5 

Chapter     II.     The   Contribution  of  Zwingli  to  the   Spirit  of  the 

Reformation     124 

Chapter  III.     The  Contribution  of  the  Reformed  to  the  Spirit  of 

Protestantism    134 


APPENDIX 144 


The 

Reformed    Reforraation 


BOOK  I 

Who  was  the  First  Reformer? 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  question  who  was  the  first  Reformer  is  an  old  one. 
There  has  been  a  long  debate  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Reformed  as  to  which  of  the  Reformers  was  the  first,  Luther 
or  Zwingli.  This  question  seems  a  very  simple  one,  but  the 
answer  is  not  by  any  means  so  simple,  as  we  shall  see.  But 
first  of  all  one  thing  is  becoming  prominent  in  the  later  re- 
searches about  the  history  of  the  Reformation  and  that  is. 
that  before  either  Luther  or  Zwingli,  there  was  another  who 
was  earlier,  Prof,  James  Lefevre,  of  France.  The  tendency 
of  modern  research  about  the  Reformation  has  been  to  go 
beyond  the  Reformers,  back  to  their  teachers  as  the  sources  of 
the  Reformation.  And  of  these  on  the  Reformed  side  two 
stand  out  prominently,  Prof.  James  Lefevre,  of  France,  and 
Prof.  Thomas  Wyttenbach,  of  Basle. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PROP.  JAMES  I^EFEVRE. 

In  the  study  of  the  Reformers,  historical  research  has 
been  going  back  of  the  Reformers  themselves  to  the  study  of 
their  antecedents.  And  so  a  new  phase  of  the  Reformation 
has  opened  up.  The  value  of  these  earlier  men  has  so  grown 
that  one  of  them  now  looms  up  as  the  first  Reformer,  Prof. 
James  Lefevre  of  Paris.  Prof.  Doumergue,  who  has  written 
the  latest  and  most  elaborate  biography  of  Calvin,  makes 
Lefevre  not  only  a  forerunner  of  the  Reformers  as  has  been 
previously  supposed,  but  he  makes  Lefevre  to  be  himself  a 
Reformer.  The  old  controversy  whether  Luther  or  Zwingli 
was  the  first  Reformer  passes  away,  for  Lefevre  was  before 
either  of  them.  And  as  Lefevre  founded  the  Reformed 
Church  of  France,  the  Reformed  would  seem  to  have  the 
advantage  in  priority.  Lefevre  was  truly  a  Reformer,  for 
he  aimed  as  did  all  the  Reformers,  at  a  reformation  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Hitherto  he  has  appeared  as  a  sort  of  a  shadowy  form, 
hovering  about  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation.  But  it  has 
been  becoming  more  clearly  evident  that  he  was  one  of  the 
greatest,  if  not  the  greatest  scholar  just  before  the  Reforma- 
tion. Baird  says :  "To  Lefevre  belongs  the  honor  of  restoring 
letters  to  France."  His  eulogist,  Scaevola  de  Saint-Marthe. 
has  not  exaggerated  his  merit,  when,  placing  him  in  the  front 
rank  of  the  learned  men  whom  he  celebrates,  he  likens  the 
Picard  doctor: 

"To  a  new  sun  rising  from  the  Belgian  coast  to  dissipate 
the  fogs  and  darkness  investing  his  native  land  and  pour  upon 
its  youth  the  full  beams  of  a  purer  learning.  Lefevre  confined 
his  attention  to  no  single  branch  of  learning.  He  was  equally 
proficient  in  mathematics,  in  astronomy,  in  Biblical  literature 
and  criticism.  Brilliant  attainments  in  so  many  department's 
were  commended  yet  more  to  the  admiration  of  beholders  by 
a  modest  and  unassuming  deportment,  by  morals  above   re- 


2  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

proach  and  by  a  disinterested  nature  in  which  there  was  no 
taint  of  avarice." 

When  Erasmus  could  say,  "Among  the  thousands  of  the 
learned  men  of  France,  there  is  only  one  Lefevre,"  we  can 
begin  to  realize  the  position  that  he  held  in  the  learned  world. 
Reuchlin,  one  of  his  cotemporaries,  wrote  to  him  (1513), 
"Thou  art  the  most  philosophical  of  the  philosophers."  In 
15 17,  Erasmus  declared  that  "Lefevre  was  a  man  so  pious, 
so  good,  so  learned,  having  rendered  such  great  service  to 
learning  and  literature  that  he  merited  never  to  grow  old." 
This  last  wish  of  Erasmus  came  as  nearly  being  fulfilled  as 
possible.  Lefevre  grew  old  until  he  became  a  centenarian, 
according  to  Doumergue.  Compared  with  him  Erasmus  and 
Reuchlin,  the  two  great  humanists  of  that  day,  were  as  boys, 
for  he  was  old  enough  to  be  their  grandfather.  Lefevre  was 
teaching  humanism  before  Erasmus  ever  knew  humanism. 

But  his  greatest  glory  was  that  he  was  the  first  to  dethrone 
the  scholastic  theology  of  the  Catholic  Church  which  had  come 
down  from  the  middle  ages.  And  this  he  did  before  Luther. 
Beza  calls  him  "one  of  the  noblest  of  men  of  earth,  if  one  con- 
siders his  learning,  his  piety,  his  generosity.  For  he  was  the 
one  who  by  living  voice  and  very  learned  writings  had  placed 
again  in  the  university  of  Paris,  mathematics  and  the  true 
logic  of  Aristotle  in  place  of  the  sophistry  which  before  had 
reigned."    Beza  hails  him  as  : 

"The  man  who  boldly  began  the  revival  of  the  pure  re- 
ligion of  Jesus  Christ;  that  just  as  in  ancient  times  the  school 
of  Isocrates  sent  forth  the  best  orators,  so  from  the  lecture 
room  of  the  doctor  of  Etaples  (Lefevre)  issued  many  of  the 
best  men  of  the  age  and  of  the  Church." 

And  so  it  develops  that  this  man,  who  has  hovered  around 
the  early  history  of  the  Reformation  as  a  phantom,  was  a  far 
greater  force  than  has  hitherto  been  supposed.  It  used  to  be 
said  that  "Erasmus  laid  the  egg  of  the  Reformation  and 
Luther  hatched  it."  But  now  it  appears  that  Lefevre  laid  the 
egg  of  the  Reformation  even  before  Erasmus  and  that  the 
Reformers  hatched  it.  For  he  seems  to  have  been  the  father 
of  all  the  great  Reformers  of  the  first  generation  except 
Melancthon,   who   was   especially   influenced   by   his    relative. 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  3 

Reuchlin.  For  Lefevre  influenced,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
Luther,  Zwingli,  Farel  and  Lasco;  and  of  them  Luther  and 
Farel  directly.  He  therefore  stands  out  as  the  leader  of  the 
thinkers  of  the  age  before  the  Reformation  and  the  father  of 
the  Reformers.  He  might  well  be  named  the  "Father  of  the 
Reformation." 

Prof.  James  Lefevre  was  born, — ah,  here  comes  the  first 
surprise.  The  view  formerly  held  was  that  he  was  born 
about  1455.  But  Doumergue  places  his  birth  about  1435  ^^^ 
very  ably  defends  it  in  his  "Life  of  Calvin."  This  date  would 
make  Lefevre  a  centenarian  when  he  died.  It  would  make  him 
an  old  man  (over  70)  before  the  Reformation  broke  out.  In- 
deed his  efforts  in  the  Reformation  were  made  at  a  time  in 
life  when  most  men  go  into  retirement.  Yet  at  that  age  he 
entered  into  the  thick  of  the  battle.  He  has  been  criticized 
for  not  having  done  more  for  the  Reformation;  the  wonder 
was,  that  in  view  of  his  great  age,  he  did  so  much. 

Not  only  the  time  when  he  was  born  is  significant,  but  also 
the  place.  He  was  born  at  Etaples  in  Picardy  in  northeastern 
France.  His  real  name  was  Faber  and  he  has  come  down  to 
us  as  Faber  Stapulensis  or  Faber  of  Etaples.  But  he  has  been 
known  to  us  in  English  mainly  as  Lefevre.  Now  it  was  from 
this  very  same  district  of  Picardy  that  John  Calvin  later  came. 
Indeed  the  Picards  were  noted  as  original  thinkers  and  lead- 
ers, for  to  Lefevre  and  Calvin  can  be  added  a  third  Reformer — 
the  great  Reformer  of  philosophy  in  the  Reformation — Peter 
Ramus.  And  other  leaders,  as  Roussel,  the  eloquent  preacher 
in  the  French  Reformation ;  Olivetan,  the  great  translator  of 
the  Bible  into  French ;  Vatables,  Calvin's  teacher  of  Hebrew, 
and  Beda,  the  great  opponent  of  Protestantism  in  the  Reforma- 
tion at  Paris,  all  came  from  this  district  of  Picardy. 

Lefevre  went  from  Picardy  to  Paris  for  his  education. 
His  great  hindrance  was  the  barbarous  instruction  he  received, 
both  in  Picardy  and  Paris.  But  all  sorts  of  obstacles  melted 
away  before  his  extraordinary  mind.  He  struggled  up  into 
knowledge  "like  one  clambering  up  the  Rigi  mountain  to 
see  the  sun  gilding  the  peaks  of  an  Alpine  range."  But  he 
kept  on  climbing  and  so  got  to  the  top  of  his  profession. 

The  materials  of  his  early  life  in  the  century  before  the 
Reformation  are  meagre.     He  not  only  studied  at  Paris  but 


4  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

improved  himself  by  much  travel,  both  in  France  and  other 
countries,  indeed  is  said  to  have  traveled  as  far  as  Asia. 
About  the  year  1492  he  took  a  journey  to  Italy.  He  visited 
Florence,  Rome  and  Venice,  where  he  studied  Platonism  and 
Aristotelianism  and  also  the  works  of  the  mystics.  In  Italy 
he  came  into  contact  with  Picus  of  Mirandola,  who  by  his 
criticisms  of  the  Romish  Church,  was  one  of  the  immediate 
forerunners  of  the  Reformation.  He  then  became  professor 
of  mathematics  and  philosophy  in  the  college  of  Cardinal 
Lemorne  at  Paris.  There  he  was  greatly  beloved  by  his  pupils 
for  his  ability,  piety,  modesty  and  gentleness.  But  he  was 
known  far  beyond  his  lecture  room  by  his  Latin  translations 
of  the  Church  Fathers  and  his  Commentary  on  the  Works  of 
Aristotle.  One  of  the  studies  that  most  influenced  him  was 
Greek.  He  first  learned  it  from  a  fugitive  from  Sparta  named 
George  Hieronymus ;  who,  about  the  middle  of  the  15th  cen- 
tury, had  been  driven  westward  by  the  Turkish  invasion  of 
Constantinople. 

But  though  the  details  of  his  life  in  that  early  period  are 
lacking,  its  results  were  not.     McCrie,  one  of  the  Church  his- 
torians of  Scotland,  says  'Xefevre  merits  the  title  of  'Father 
of  French  Literature,'  not  so  much   for  the  books  he  pub- 
lished  as   for  the  intellectual   stimulus   he  gave  to  that  age 
through  his  scholars.    The  greater  part  of  the  Frenchmen  who 
distinguished  themselves  in  the  first  part  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury were  either  trained  under  him  or  in  some  way  indebted 
to  his  instructions."    That  statement  of  McCrie's  is  borne  out 
by  the  fact  that  the  most  distinguished  men  of  the  early  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century  were  his  pupils.     They  were  Bricon- 
net,  later  bishop  of  Meaux,  one  of  the  most  influential  church- 
men of  his  age;  Vatable,  one  of  the  finest  teachers  of  Hebrew 
and  later  Calvin's  teacher ;  Roussel,  the  confessor  of  Margaret, 
Queen  of  Navarre  and  sister  of  king  Francis  I  of  France, 
and    others.      Perhaps   most    eminent   among   his    pupils    was 
William  Bude,  who  led  king  Francis  I,  who  was  the  patron 
of  humanism,  to  establish  royal  lectures  in  Paris,  so  that  in- 
struction might  be  given  in  Greek,  Hebrew  and  mathematics, 
wholly  in  the  spirit  of  the  renaissance.     This  was  done  with 
such  a  zeal   for  the  new  learning  of  humanism  as  to  rouse 
the  hostility  of  the  Sorbonne  at  Paris.     Out  of  these  royal 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  5 

lectures  grew  later  the  College  of  France. 

Lefevre's  class  room  was  the  place  where  the  seeds  of 
the  Reformation  were  very  early  sown.  Out  of  it  came  Will- 
iam Farel,  the  fiery  herald  of  Protestantism  and  the  co-laborer 
of  Calvin ;  Louis  de  Berquin,  who  was  the  first  in  France  to 
give  his  life  as  a  martyr  to  the  new  faith,  and  others.  Re- 
formers of  other  lands  came  into  contact  with  Lefevre  when 
they  visited  Paris,  as  Lasco  of  Poland.  In  fact,  all  the  early 
Reformers  of  France  grew  out  of  his  class  room  or  through 
his  influence.  But  perhaps  greatest  of  all,  as  Beza  says,  was 
his  attack  on  the  scholastic  theology  that  had  ruled  the  uni- 
versities. He  denounced  it  as  barbarism.  His  conflict  with  it 
and  victory  over  it  were  the  stepping  stones  to  the 
Reformation. 

In  1509  occurred  an  event  destined  to  be  epochal  in  his 
life.  Though  still  professor,  he  went  to  live  with  bishop 
Briconnet  in  the  great  monastery  at  St.  Germain  de  Pres  in 
Paris.  There  he  lived  as  abbot  for  thirteen  years.  This  close 
connection  with  Briconnet,  who  had  been  his  principal  pupil, 
brought  him  into  close  contact  with  the  court  of  France; 
especially  as  later,  Roussel,  another  of  his  pupils,  became  con- 
fessor of  Queen  Margaret.  It  was  through  Lefevre  that 
Queen  Margaret,  the  "Esther  of  the  French  court,"  was  con- 
verted to  Evangelical  views.  Her  brother.  King  Francis  I, 
was  favorable  to  humanism  and  hated  alike  the  bigotry  of 
the  monks  and  the  tyranny  of  the  priests.  It  was  owing  to 
this  close  relationship  of  Lefevre  to  the  French  court,  that  he 
did  not  pay  his  life  as  a  forfeit  for  his  Evangelical  views. 
Nothing  but  the  royal  protection  ever  permitted  him  to  die 
a  natural  death  in  the  midst  of  so  much  persecution  as 
Protestantism  sufifered  in  France  during  his  life. 

The  other  important  result  of  his  entrance  into  this  monas- 
tery was  due  to  its  large  and  important  library.  There  he 
turned  to  study  and  especially  to  the  study  of  the  Bible;  for 
the  cloister  library  gave  him  much  material.  And  this  study 
of  the  Bible  made  him  a  Reformer.  Though  at  least  fifty 
years  of  age  and  probably  seventy  (according  to  Doumergue) 
he  began  to  set  aside  profane  studies  and  to  search  the  Bible. 
The  result  of  this  was  the  publication  of  his  first  work  on  this 
subject— the  Psalms,  "Quintuplex  Psalterium." 


6  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

To  show  his  importance,  let  us  institute  a  comparison. 
One  of  the  epoch-making  events  of  the  Reformation  was  the 
pubhcation  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  by  Erasmus  in 
1 516.  Its  great  importance  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  before 
its  publication,  scholars,  if  they  wanted  to  get  hold  of  the 
original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  had  no  way  but  to  go 
to  the  Church  Fathers  and  pick  out  here  and  there  a  verse 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  Latin  language  had  become  the 
sacred  language  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  this  so  com- 
pletely, that  it  had  crushed  out  the  Greek.  When  therefore 
Erasmus'  New  Testament  appeared,  it  did  not  take  long  for 
the  Reformers  to  see  the  difference  between  it  and  the  Romish 
Church  of  their  day.  Erasmus  therefore  very  worthily  ac- 
quired great  fame  from  this  publication.  But  pause  a  moment. 
Before  Erasmus  did  so  great  a  thing,  Lefevre  had  long  been 
at  work  on  an  effort  just  as  important.  As  early  as  1509, 
seven  years  before  Erasmus  had  published  his  New  Testament, 
Lefevre  published  the  Psalms,  which  was  only  the  beginning 
of  his  great  work  of  Bible  publication,  far  more  extensive  and 
influential  than  Erasmus,  as  we  shall  see.  This  work  on  the 
Psalms  was  in  Latin.  It  contained  five  versions  of  the  Psalms : 
I.  The  Roman  translation.  2.  The  Second  Roman  version — 
the  Galilean.  3.  The  translation  from  the  Hebrew  by  the 
early  Church  Father,  Jerome.  4.  The  translation  before 
Jerome.  5.  Lefevre's  own  translation,  with  a  critical  and  exe- 
getical  commentary.  He  published  this  work  in  order  that 
students  of  the  Bible  might  get  new  light  and  a  deeper  insight 
into  the  meaning  of  that  sacred  book  by  a  comparison  of  the 
translations. 

Now  in  doing  this  he  began  to  depart  from  a  great  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholics  that  the  Vulgate  was  the  sacred 
translation.  But  more  significant  than  this  is  a  remark  that 
he  makes  in  the  book.  In  its  preface  he  says  "that  all  his 
studies  in  human  knowledge  (and  he  had  been  at  them  for 
perhaps  a  half  a  century)  were  only  as  darkness  compared 
with  the  brilliant  light  revealed  by  the  study  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." He  compared  this  study  of  divine  things  "to  the 
exhalation  of  a  perfume  to  whose  sweetness  the  world  has  no 
equal."  Thus  somewhere  about  the  time  that  Luther  was 
making  his  first  discovery  of  a  Bible  at  Erfurt,  Lefevre  had 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  7 

published  the  results  of  his  study  of  the  Bible.  Lefevre  was 
thus  the  Aurora — the  daybreak  of  the  Reformation,  of  which 
Wycklife  had  been  the  Morning  Star. 

And  now  comes  a  most  interesting  fact  about  this  work 
of  Lefevre's.  It  has  been  hitherto  supposed  that  Lefevre  was 
the  father  of  the  French  Reformation,  but  it  was  not  known 
that  he  affected  the  early  Lutheran  Reformation.  Luther  began 
his  lectures  on  the  Psalms  at  Wittenberg  about  15 12.  What  was 
the  book  that  he  used?  It  was  none  other  than  Lefevre's 
work  on  the  Psalms,  for  Luther's  copy  of  the  work  has  been 
found,  containing  his  own  notes  in  it.  An  attempt  has  been 
made  by  German  Church  historians  to  make  everything  in  the 
Reformation  to  be  indebted  to  Luther — that  every  other  Refor- 
mation came  from  the  German  Reformation.  The  attempt  has 
been  made  to  make  Lefevre  indebted  to  Luther.  But  this 
recent  discovery  has  turned  the  tables  completely.  Lefevre 
was  not  indebted  to  Luther,  but  Luther  to  Lefevre  and  in 
two  ways. 

1.  He  used  this  work  of  Lefevre  in  his  Lectures. 

2.  He  used  Lefevre's  method  of  exegesis.  Lefevre  broke 
the  way  for  a  better  exegesis  than  the  exaggerated  allegorizing 
method  of  the  Catholics.  Lefevre  began  to  see  that  the  Bible 
must  be  interpreted  by  itself  and  not  according  to  the  Church 
fathers  or  according  to  the  allegorizing  method  in  use  before 
that  time,  by  which  each  text  had  to  have  at  least  four  ways 
of  being  interpreted :  literal,  allegorical,  tropical,  and  analogi- 
cal. He  made  a  beginning  of  this  new  method  in  his  work  on 
the  Psalms.  True,  it  was  only  a  beginning  and  he  still  was 
largely  affected  by  the  old  allegorizing  method.  For  he  alle- 
gorized the  Psalms  somewhat  and  made  them  refer  to  Christ. 
Still  he  began  the  new  method  which  he  later  improved.  And 
this  method  Luther  began  adopting. 

Another  interesting  fact  about  this  book  of  Lefevre's  is 
that  a  copy  of  it  came  into  the  library  of  Zwingli  also.  In 
our  days,  it  is  true,  the  mere  presence  of  a  book  in  a  man's 
library  does  not  count  for  much,  because  of  the  multitude  of 
books  that  are  published.  But  in  those  days,  when  books  were 
scarce  and  very  expensive,  the  owner  would  not  put  his  money 
into  a  book  unless  he  was  really  interested  in  it.  The  pres- 
ence of  a  book  in  a  library  counted  for  much  more  in  those 


8  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

days  than  it  would  now.  Thus  the  presence  of  heretical  books 
in  a  man's  library  was  then  counted  as  proof  positive  that  he 
was  heretical.  Remembering  this,  the  presence  of  this  book 
in  Zwingli's  library  is  significant.  And  what  makes  it  more 
significant  is  the  fact  that  Zwingli  wrote  his  own  notes  on  it  in 
the  pages  of  the  book,  showing  that  he  studied  it.  And  it 
doubtless  began  affecting  his  method  of  exegesis  as  he  revealed 
it  later  by  making  the  Bible  its  own  interpreter. 

If  the  year  1509  was  an  epochal  one  for  Lefevre,  the 
year  1512  was  more  significant  and  for  two  things:  He  pub- 
lished a  new  book  and  he  got  a  new  pupil. 

The  first  was  the  publication  of  Lefevre's  work  on  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  This  is  important,  for  Doumergue  calls  it 
"the  first  Protestant  book,"  published  five  years  before  Luther's 
theses.  And  for  that  reason,  he  calls  Lefevre  "the  first  of 
the  Reformers." 

The  second  great  event  for  Lefevre  was  that  he  got  a  new 
student  in  William  Farel,  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Reformers 
and  the  co-laborer  of  Calvin.  Farel  so  frequently  referred  in 
his  writings  to  his  association  with  Lefevre  that  these  cast  a 
very  interesting  sidelight  into  Lefevre's  relation  to  the  Refor- 
mation. So  Lefevre  was  not  only  the  first  Protestant,  but  he 
also  raised  up  the  first  great  leader  of  French  Protestantism, 
Farel. 

William  Farel  was  born  at  Gap  and  about  1509  went  to 
Paris  to  study.  He  graduated  there  in  1517  and  left  that 
city  in  1521  to  follow  Lefevre  to  Meaux.  The  descriptions 
he  has  left  reveal  very  vividly  Lefevre's  life.  His  first  descrip- 
tion of  Lefevre  is  as  a  strict  Catholic  when  he  first  came  to 
know  him.    He  says : 

"Prof.  James  Lefevre  bowed  down  lower  before  the 
images  than  any  other  person  I  had  seen  in  my  life.  He 
would  stay  for  an  immense  time  on  his  knees,  praying  and 
telling  his  beads  before  those  images.  And  I  would  join  him 
in  doing  so.  I  was  delighted  to  have  found  such  a  man,  slave 
as  he  was  to  the  pope  and  believing  those  things  (Farel  was 
at  that  time  a  strict  papist,  'more  papistic  than  the  pope  him- 
self,' he  says)  which  are  most  detestable  in  popish  idolatry." 

But  it  was  this  same  Lefevre  who  led  Farel  out  of  these 
superstitions  to  Christ.    For  Lefevre  would  frequently  tell  his 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  9 

young  disciple :  "All  things  are  gone  wrong,  dear  William, 
and  some  day  God  will  make  all  things  new.  You  may  per- 
haps see  it."  That  prophecy  came  true.  Farel  not  merely  saw 
that  day,  but  Lefevre  also.  And  Lefevre  would  also  denounce 
to  him  some  of  the  evils  of  the  Catholic  Church.  "How  dis- 
agreeable," he  says,  "is  it  to  see  a  bishop  asking  men  to  drink 
with  him,  gambling,  rattling  the  dice,  spending  his  time  with 
hawks  and  dogs  and  in  hunting,  hallowing  after  rooks  and 
deer  and  following  after  such  company." 

But  important  as  was  Farel's  coming  to  him,  his  publica- 
tion of  his  new  work  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  was  equally  im- 
portant. It  was  a  Latin  translation  of,  and  commentary  on, 
the  Letters  of  Paul.  In  it  he  enlarged  upon  what  he  had 
hinted  at  in  his  work  on  the  Psalms  in  1509.  "This  book," 
says  Doumergue,  "may  in  a  certain  sense  be  called  the  first 
Protestant  book."  This  is  because  it  was  published  five  years 
before  Luther's  theses  and  for  that  reason  may  be  called  the 
first  Protestant  book.  It  makes  Lefevre  the  first  of  the  Re- 
formers. In  it  he  speaks  of  the  necessity  of  a  reformation  in 
the  Church.    He  says  : 

"The  Church  rather  follows  the  examples  of  its  leaders 
and  is  far  removed  from  what  it  ought  to  be.  The  signs  of 
the  times  foretell  a  new  revival.  And  since  God  has  opened 
new  ways  for  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  through  the  dis- 
coveries and  conquests  of  the  Spaniards  and  Portugese  in  all 
parts  of  the  world,  we  hope  that  he  will  also  visit  his  Church 
and  again  lift  her  up  from  the  humiliation  into  which  she  has 
fallen." 

His  favorite  idea  that  "God  would  renew  the  world,"  so 
often  expressed  to  Farel,  appears  in  this  work.  "God  in  his 
great  mercy,"  he  says,  will  soon  revive  the  expiring  spark  in 
the  hearts  of  men  so  that  faith  and  love  and  a  purer  worship 
will  return.  "Well,  he  was  old  enough  to  be  a  prophet  and 
he  proved  to  be  a  true  prophet. 

This  book  reveals  Lefevre's  independence  of  Rome  in 
several  important  respects. 

I.  In  the  preface, contrary  to  the  common  Catholic  tradition, 
which  makes  Jerome  the  early  Church  Father  to  be  the  author 
of  the  Vulgate,  he  took  the  position  that  Jerome  was  not  the 
author  of  the  Vulgate.     Now  to  deny  that  Jerome  was  the 


10  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

author  of  Vulgate  version  was  going  straight  against  the 
decree  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He  thus  began  an  era  of 
criticism,  which  ultimately  led  to  a  breach  with  the  Romish 
Church.  And  he  not  only  denied  this  to  Jerome,  but  he  began 
departing  from  the  Vulgate,  as  he  soon  tried  to  correct  it 
according  to  the  Greek. 

2.  But  more  important  and  significant  for  Protestantism 
was  his  declaration  for  the  authority  of  the  Bible;  and  this 
supremacy  of  the  Bible  would  logically  interfere  with  the 
supremacy  of  the  Church's  authority.     He  boldly  says: 

"It  is  there  (in  the  Bible)  where  the  doctrine  of  Christ  is 
found.  And  those  who  will  study  it,  will  draw  water  with  joy 
from  the  Savior's  spring."  "Let  us  exalt  Christ  our  king  by 
studying  him  in  the  holy  oracles.  Let  us  not  follow  the  pre- 
cepts and  dogmas  of  men,  which  have  no  foundation  in  the 
light  that  has  shone  from  on  high." 

3.  But  more  significant  than  either  of  these  was  his  clear 
enunciation  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  He  held 
that  salvation  was  not  of  works,  but  was  by  grace — the  free 
gift  of  God.    He  says : 

"It  is  almost  blasphemous  to  talk  of  the  merit  of  works 
especially  before  God.  For  a  merit  does  not  seem  to  ask  for 
grace,  but  to  exact  what  is  due :  to  attribute  merit  to  works  is 
to  have  the  opinion  of  those  who  think  that  we  can  be  justified 
by  works,  an  error  for  which  the  Jews  were  particularly  con- 
demned. Therefore  let  us  not  speak  of  the  merit  of  our 
works,  which  is  very  small  indeed,  rather  worthless.  And  let 
us  exalt  the  grace  of  God  which  is  everything.  One  can 
attribute  real  merit  to  no  one  but  Christ,  who  has  deserved 
everything  for  us :  But  as  for  ourselves,  let  us  acknowledge 
that  we  have  no  merit  before  God  and  hope  in  his  grace." 
'But  you  say,  has  any  one  ever  been  justified  without  the 
works  of  the  law,  either  written  or  natural?'  Yes,  there  have 
been  such  and  without  number.  Who  knows  not  that  the 
penitent  thief  was  justified  by  faith  alone."  "By  works  with- 
out faith  it  is  impossible  to  be  justified;  by  faith  without  works, 
it  is  possible." 

"It  is  God  alone  who  by  His  grace  justifies  unto  ever- 
lasting life.  There  is  a  righteousness  of  works,  there  is  a 
righteousness  of  grace :  the  one  is  earthly  and  passeth  away, 
the  other  is  heavenly  and  eternal :  one  is  the  shadow  and  the 
sign,  the  other,  the  light  and  the  truth :  one  makes  sin  known 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  1 1 

to  us  that  we  may  escape  death,  the  other  reveals  grace  that 
we  may  obtain  Hfe." 

When  asked  by  his  hearers  in  his  lectures,  'If  we  are  not 
justified  by  works  what  is  the  use  of  performing  them?"  His 
answer  was : 

"Certainly,  they  are  not  in  vain.  If  I  hold  a  mirror 
to  the  sun,  its  image  is  reflected ;  the  more  I  polish  and  clear  it, 
the  brighter  is  its  reflection.  But  if  I  allow  it  to  become 
tarnished,  the  splendor  of  the  sun  is  dimmed.  It  is  the  same 
with  justification  (he  really  means  sanctification)  in  those  who 
lead  an  impure  life." 

His  objectors  answered,  "Then  St.  James  did  not  agree 
with  St.  Paul  ?"    Lefevre's  reply  was : 

"St.  James  says,  in  the  first  chapter,  that  every  good  and 
perfect  gift  cometh  down  from  above.  Can  you  deny  that 
salvation  is  a  good  and  perfect  gift.  It  is  true,  works  are  a 
necessary  sign  of  faith,  just  as  breathing  is  a  necessary  sign 
of  life.  But  a  man  breathes  because  he  is  alive.  If  he  did 
not  breathe,  you  would  know  that  he  is  dead.  A  man  is 
justified  by  faith,  and  works  then  follow  as  a  necessity." 

He  does  not  stop  here,  but  goes  on  to  show  how  God  could 
be  just  and  yet  deal  with  guilty  sinners, — he  could  punish  sin 
and  yet  spare  the  sinner.     He  said: 

"Wonderful  exchange,  the  Innocent  One  is  condemned 
and  the  criminal  acquitted,  the  Blessed  One  is  cursed  and  he 
who  is  cursed  is  blessed,  the  life  dies  and  the  dead  live,  the 
glorv  is  covered  with  shame  and  he  who  is  put  to  shame  is 
covered  with  glory.  And  all  from  God's  free  and  sovereign 
love.  Those  who  are  saved  are  saved  because  God  chose  it — 
by  grace,  by  the  will  of  God,  not  by  their  own  will.  Our  own 
choice,  our  own  will,  our  own  works  are  useless,  it  is  the  choice 
of  God,  that  alone  is  the  cause  of  our  salvation.  When  we  are 
converted,  it  is  not  conversion  that  makes  us  to  be  God's  chosen 
people;  but  it  is  the  grace,  will  and  choice  of  God  that  makes 
us  to  be  converted  people.  And  not  converted  people 'only,  God 
makes  us  to  be  members  of  the  body  of  his  Son  so  that  we 
are  filled  with  himself;  for  in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily.  Oh  if  men  could  but  understand  this 
privilege,  how  purely,' how  holily  would  they  live.  They  would 
look  upon  all  the  glory  of  this  world  as  dung.  They  would 
delight  themselves  in  that  glory  which  is  hidden  from  the 
eyes  of  the  flesh."     "There  is  but  one  foundation,  one  object, 


12  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

one  head,  Jesus  Christ,  blessed  forevermore.  Let  us  not  call 
ourselves  after  Paul  or  Apollos  or  Peter.  One  is  our  Master, 
even  Christ." 

Thus  Lefevre,  says  Doumergue,  not  only  posits  the  two 
fundamental  positions  of  Protestantism,  the  supremacy  of 
Scripture  and  justification  by  faith;  but  he  also  attacks  the 
bases  of  Catholicism.  One  of  these  was  the  magic  of  the 
sacraments.     He  says : 

"The  washing  with  material  water  in  baptism  does  not 
justify  us;  but  it  is  the  sign  of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ: 
for  the  sensible  symbols  are  the  signs  of  things  and  divine 
infusions." 

He  also  attacked  the  reality  of  the  mass.  He  opposes  the 
"opus  operatum"  in  the  Lord's  Supper  or  the  idea  of  sacrifice 
in  the  mass.  In  commenting  on  Hebrews  where  Christ  satis- 
fies for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  by  his  sacrifice  alone, 
he  says : 

"That  which  is  performed  every  day  by  the  ministry  of 
the  priests  is  not  so  much  repeated  sacrifices  as  the  remem- 
brance and  recollection  of  the  one  and  only  victim  who  was 
ofifered  but  once."  "It  is  said  every  time  that  you  do  this  'do 
it  in  remembrance  of  me,'  for  he  has  satisfied  for  us  all.  And 
there  are  no  other  mysteries  save  in  the  presence  of  his  body 
and  blood.  The  remembrance  of  the  divine  sacrifice  and 
satisfaction  is  beneficial  to  all  and  more  acceptable  to  God 
than  any  other  sacrifice  of  satisfaction  unto  the  end  of  the 
world." 

He  thus  denies  transubstantiation,  though  he  held  to  a 
real  presence  of  Christ  of  some  sort,  which  later  reappeared 
in  the  spiritual  theory  of  Christ's  presence,  formulated  by  his 
successor,  Calvin. 

In  addition  to  attacking  the  sacraments,  he  also  attacked : 

1.  The  celibacy  of  the  priests,  saying  of  it  that  the  Church 
had  fallen  into  the  snare  of  the  devil. 

2.  Lent  and  the  practise  of  fasting.  Also  tithes,  monkery, 
etc.    He  says : 

"There  are  men  nowadays  who  teach  a  foolish  godliness 
instead  of  Christ's  doctrine.  What  does  it  profit  me  to  fast 
new  Lents  or  to  pay  my  tithes  ?  Why  trust  myself  to  formulas 
of  prayer  of  unknown  authors  and  leave  aside  the  prescrip- 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  13 

tions  of  the  apostles.  Why  die  in  the  cassock  when  one  has 
Hved  his  whole  life  in  the  secular  habit?  No  such  thing  is 
ordered  in  Christ's  doctrine.  The  balance  may  be  more  super- 
stitious than  religious.  Let  us  therefore  attach  ourselves  to 
Christ  alone  and  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  for  it  is  sufifi- 
cient  and  it  is  first  and  paramount  for  salvation." 

3.  The  use  of  the  Latin  language  in  the  Catholic  worship. 
He  declared  that  most  of  the  people  prayed  without  under- 
standing what  they  prayed  and  so  they  did  not  pray  in  the 
Spirit. 

We  thus  see  how  Protestant  this  book  is,  for  these  were 
all  of  them  sound  Protestant  positions  and  for  that  reason  he 
could  be  called  a  Protestant.  It  was  truly  a  remarkable  book 
for  its  day.  Its  advanced  ideas  did  not  pass  unnoticed  by  the 
Catholics,  although  at  the  time  its  true  import  and  significance 
was  not  realized.    There  were  several  reasons  for  this : 

1.  One  was  that  they  were  written  in  Latin  and  so  reached 
only  the  learned. 

2.  The  times  were  not  ripe  for  such  a  book.  The  abuses 
of  the  indulgences  had  not  become  a  scandal  as  five  years  later 
when  Luther  nailed  up  the  theses. 

3.  Lefevre  was  a  different  sort  of  man  from  Luther.  He 
has  commonly  been  represented  as  a  quiet,  mystical  sort  of 
scholar.  That  is  not  exactly  true.  He  could  fight  (as  we 
shall  see)  when  attacked.  But  he  was  not  the  polemist  that 
Luther  was.  Luther  was  the  offensive  theologian,  Lefevre 
the  defensive.  But  he  was  not  the  quiet  sort  of  man  hitherto 
supposed,  for  he  could  hit  back  hard  when  attacked. 

All  these  things  prevented  this  book  from  creating  the 
sensation  later  created  by  Luther,  although  this  book  was  far 
more  Protestant  than  Luther's  theses,  which  had  little  of  what 
is  distinctively  Protestant  in  them. 

But  what  makes  this  book  still  more  significant  as  a 
source  of  the  Reformation,  is  that  it  has  been  discovered  that 
Luther  possessed  a  copy  of  it  and  used  it  in  his  lectures  at 
the  university  at  Wittenberg.  He  used  it  up  to  15 16  or  15 17 
when  the  New  Testament  of  Erasmus  came  into  his  hands. 
Luther  therefore  was  indebted  to  Lefevre.  The  German 
Church  historians  have  labored  to  make  all  the  rest  of  the 


14  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Reformation  to  be  indebted  to  Luther.  Zwingli,  say  Harnack 
and  Loofs  and  Seeborg,  got  his  ideas  from  Luther.  We  will 
answer  this  claim  in  regard  to  Zwingli  elsewhere.  They  also 
claim  that  Lefevre  was  indebted  to  Luther.*  But  the  recent 
discovery  of  Luther's  copy  of  Lefevre's  Commentary  has 
proved  that  Luther  utilized  Lefevre.  No,  Lefevre  stated  the 
doctrine  of  justification  in  15 12  before  Luther  held  to  that 
doctrine.  That  doctrine  was  not  formulated  till  the  Reforma- 
tion. And  Lefevre's  book  was  the  only  one  in  which  that 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  was  first  formulated.  So 
Luther  got  its  formulated  statement  from  him.  We  thus  see 
how  Luther  was  indebted  to  Lefevre.  Luther  was  not  the 
first  Reformer  as  the  Germans  claim,  but  Lefevre.  Luther 
speaks  highly  of  Lefevre  for  he  later  says  he  feared  "Erasmus 
did  not  sufficiently  promote  the  cause  of  Christ  and  the  grace 
of  God,  in  which  he  was  more  ignorant  than  Lefevre." 

It  has  been  objected  by  those  who  favor  Luther,  that 
Lefevre  was  not  a  Reformer,  because  he  did  not  do  something 
like  burning  the  pope's  bull  as  Luther  did  or  write  a  work  such 
as  Calvin's  "Institutes  of  Theology."  Well  there  were  others 
whom  the  world  recognizes  as  Reformers  besides  Luther  and 
Calvin  and  yet  they  did  not  burn  a  bull  or  write  an  Institutes. 
Neither  Bullinger  or  Beza  did  any  such  things,  yet  they  are 
rated  as  Reformers.  Each  man  became  a  Reformer  accord- 
ing to  his  own  disposition  and  circumstances.  There  were 
different  kinds  of  Reformers  and  Lefevre  was  one  of  them. 

But  again  it  is  objected  that  Lefevre  held  to  some  Catholic 
doctrines.  That  is  true,  for  when  he  published  this  work  he 
seems  still  to  have  held  to  prayers  to  the  saints  and  purgatory 
and  did  not  attack  the  constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
But  neither  was  Luther  a  Protestant  when  he  nailed  the  theses 
up  at  Wittenberg.  He  still  held  to  the  invocation  of  the 
saints  and  transubstantiation  and  other  Romish  doctrines.  The 
truth  seems  to  be  that  Lefevre  was  as  much  a  Protestant 
in  15 12  as  Luther  in  15 17  and  more  so.  Thus  Farel,  in  1522, 
says  of  Luther,  that  the  gospel  was  hindered  in  France  by  the 
reading  of  Luther's  earlier  works,  because  they  were  not  ex- 

*  Doumergue  has  ably  answered  this  in   his  Life   of  Calvin, 
Vol.  I,  pages  542-555. 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  15 

purgated  from  such  Romanizing  ideas  as  prayers  to  the  saints, 
purgatory  and  transubstantiation. 

Again  some  have  objected  to  Lefevre's  being  a  Reformer 
because  he  did  not  directly  break  off  from  CathoHcism  and 
come  out  squarely  as  a  Protestant.  Neither  did  Luther  at 
first.  He  did  not  really  break  with  the  Catholic  Church  until 
it  began  to  break  with  him.  It  forced  the  issue.  We  shall 
take  up  this  special  point  about  Lefevre  later.  Suffice  it  to 
say  just  now,  that  the  charge  of  timidity  that  used  to  be 
made  against  Lefevre  and  which,  it  was  said,  kept  him  from 
leaving  the  Catholic  Church,  must  now  be  revised  in  the  light 
of  what  Prof.  Doumergue  has  brought  forth.  Lefevre  got 
into  too  many  controversies  after  this  to  have  been  a  timid 
man.. 

This  doctrine  of  justification  by  free  grace,  taught  in  this 
book,  he  taught  to  Farel,  who  in  later  years  wrote  "Lefevre 
extricated  me  from  the  false  opinion  of  human  merits  and 
taught  me  that  everything  came  from  grace,  which  I  believed 
as  soon  as  it  was  spoken."  Farel  also  says  "Lefevre  turned 
me  from  the  false  thought  that  I  could  deserve  anything  of 
God."  He  said,  "We  have  no  merits  at  all.  All  is  of  grace 
or  of  God's  pure  mercy  to  those  who  deserve  nothing.  And 
this  I  believed  as  soon  as  it  was  told  me." 

We  now  come  to  the  period  when  Lefevre  shows  his  fight- 
ing mettle.  The  first  controversy  was  a  humanistic  controversy 
in  1 5 14  between  the  humanists  and  obscurantists.  John  Pflfer- 
korn,  a  converted  Jew,  and  Jacob  Hochstratten,  a  Dominican 
inquisitor,  had  insisted  on  the  banishment  of  the  Jews  and 
the  destruction  of  their  writings.  The  emperor  Maximilian, 
to  settle  the  controversy,  finally  required  an  opinion  from 
Reuchlin.  This  great  Humanist,  who  was  the  finest  Hebraist 
of  his  day,  with  great  ability  defended  Hebrew  literature. 
Pfiferkorn  published  Reuchlin's  opinion  with  abusive  comments, 
denounced  him  as  a  heretic  and  had  him  brought  before  the 
bishop  of  Spires  for  trial.  The  whole  literary  and  theological 
world  of  that  day  was  drawn  into  the  contest.  On  the  one 
side  were  the  monks  and  on  the  other  the  humanists.  Reuch- 
lin was  acquitted  by  the  court.  But  the  battle  between  the 
two  parties  continued  to  rage  until  Count  Francis  Von  Sickin- 
gen  forced  the  monks  to  pay  the  costs  of  prosecution  and  to 


i6  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

make  an  honorable  reparation  to  Reuchlin.  In  this  great  con- 
troversy, the  greatest  just  before  the  Reformation,  where  did 
Lefevre  stand?  Was  he  timid?  Not  at  all.  He  boldly  de- 
fended Reuchlin.  Thus  in  a  letter  of  August  30,  15 14,  he 
wrote  to  Reuchlin:  "If  you  triumph,  we  triumph  with  you." 
The  next  great  controversy  into  which  Lefevre  entered 
was  directly  against  Catholic  ideas.  It  occurred  in  15 17,  the 
very  year  Luther  nailed  up  his  theses.  Lefevre  ventured  to 
battle  with  the  Sorbonne  at  Paris.  The  previous  year,  he  had 
published  a  second  edition  of  his  Commentary  on  Paul's 
Epistles,  which  contained  so  much  about  justification  as  we 
have  seen.  Now  he  also  published  another  work  on  Mary 
Magdalene.  This  attacked  a  favorite  view  of  the  Catholics, 
indeed  one  that  was  incorporated  in  their  liturgy  for  the 
Church  Lessons  set  down  for  festival  days.  It  thus  had 
official  sanction.  It  was  that  the  three  Marys  of  the  New 
Testament,  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  of  Bethany,  and  Mary 
who  anointed  Jesus'  feet,  were  one  and  the  same  person. 
Lefevre  declared  that  they  were  not  one  but  were  three  differ- 
ent persons.  He  discussed  it  as  a  mere  academic  question, 
but  it  raised  a  tremendous  storm.  The  Sorbonne  at  Paris, 
led  by  Beda,  loudly  attacked  it.  The  Franciscans,  Carmelites, 
Dominicans  vomited  forth  insults  on  the  author  of  this  heresy. 
They  called  him  "stupid,"  "impious,"  "ignorant."  A  great 
polemical  controversy  arose.  In  this  storm,  what  did  Lefevre 
do?  Did  he  do,  as  we  have  hitherto  been  led  to  believe  (be- 
cause he  was  such  a  timid  character),  be  silent  or  recant?  Not 
at  all.  He  boldly  replied  to  these  attacks.  Yes,  he  even  went 
farther  than  before.  He  added  another  idea  that  seemed  to 
them  heretical.  He  declared  that  Anna,  the  husband  of  Mary, 
had  not  three  husbands  and  three  daughters  as  they  believed, 
but  one  husband  and  one  daughter.  When  warned  by  a  friend 
that  the  publication  of  one  of  his  books  would  expose  him  to 
the  fire,  he  replied : 

"I  fear  nothing.  I  do  not  believe  there  can  be  danger 
when  we  drive  error  from  the  minds  of  Christians  in  order 
to  show  them  the  truth.  If  some  condemn  me  and  my  book 
to  the  fire,  I  will  pray  against  the  fire  that  the  dew  from  heaven 
will  put  it  out.     I  will  forgive  them." 

These  are  not  the  words  of  a  coward  but  of  a  martyr. 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  17 

Thus  a  tremendous  polemic  grew  around  Lefevre.  Re- 
peated attacks  on  him  were  pubHshed.  Replies  were  made  to 
them  by. his  friends  as  Clichtove  and  Agrippa  of  Nettesheim 
To  Beda,  Lefevre's  unpardonable  offence  was  that  he,  a  pro- 
fessor in  the  philosophical  department  of  the  university,  should 
presume  to  investigate  matters  that  belonged  only  to  the  doc- 
tors of  theology  of  the  Sorbonne.  The  bishop  of  Paris  ap- 
pealed to  Fisher,  the  bishop  of  Rochester  in  England,  who 
published  two  tracts  against  Lefevre  and  Clichtove.  They 
responded  and  he  replied.  Thus  there  was  a  battle  of  books. 
But  in  it  all  Lefevre  never  lost  his  courage  or  proved  the 
weakling  he  has  hitherto  been  supposed  to  be.  Farel,  writing 
of  this  controversy,  says :  Inasmuch  as  Master  Faber  had  a 
great  deal  more  learning  than  all  the  doctors  of  Paris,  he 
was  persecuted  by  them  for  that  reason.  And  I  began  thereby 
to  see  the  meanness  of  those  doctors  and  esteemed  them  no 
longer  as  I  had  done."  Great  was  the  uproar  among  the 
students  of  the  university  as  Lefevre  taught  his  new  doctrines. 
They  began  to  occupy  themselves  almost  as  much  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  with  their  studies  and  comedies. 

Finally  the  university  of  Paris  on  November  9,  1521, 
issued  a  decree  that  he  v/as  a  heretic  because  he  maintained 
that  the  three  Marys  were  not  one  person.  Thus  six  months 
after  the  university  ordered  Luther's  books  to  be  burned  there, 
Lefevre  was  condemned.  Luther's  works  since  15 19  had  been 
coming  into  France.  Beda  and  the  Sorbonne  detested  and 
feared  Luther ;  but  lo !  they  had  a  Luther  in  their  midst  in 
Lefevre.  Beda  wanted  to  bring  Lefevre  before  parliament  as 
a  heretic.  But  just  then  the  royal  friendship  of  King  Francis 
and  Queen  Margaret  intervened  for  Lefevre  and  the  process 
against  him  was  stopped.  Such  was  the  storm  that  Lefevre 
raised  and  nothing  saved  him  but  the  royal  intervention.  But 
meanwhile  Lefevre  had  escaped  from  the  power  of  his  enemies. 
He  had  left  Paris  early  in  1521  and  gone  to  Meaux,  about 
thirty  miles  from  Paris,  at  the  invitation  of  bishop  Briconnet, 
who  had  been  one  of  his  students.    There  he  was  safe. 

During  this  controversy  around  him,  Lefevre  was  also 
passing  through  a  change  within  himself.  At  the  beginning 
of  1519  he  published  the  "Legends  of  the  Saints"  or  the  "Acts 
of  the  Martyrs."     This  was  a  collection  of  legends  intended 


r8  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

for  daily  meditation  of  believers.  The  book  was  nothing  but 
a  collection  of  superstitions.  He  published  the  legends  for 
January  and  February;  but  March  came  and  no  Legends  ap- 
peared. Hardly  had  he  begun  the  publication  before  he 
stopped  it.  Farel  says,  "Having  heard  the  gross  idolatry 
which  belonged  to  the  prayers  of  the  saints  and  that  their 
legends  served  as  brimstone  to  kindle  the  fire,  he  gave  it  all 
up  and  betook  himself  to  Scripture."  Thus  Lefevre  cast  away 
saints  and  saint-worship.  Farel  thus  describes  it :  "One,  for 
whom  I  thank  God,  spoke  to  me  about  worship, — that  we 
should  worship  God  alone, — no  saints,  no  images,  no  angels — 
God  alone."  And  thus  Lefevre  in  15 19  in  casting  aside  this 
doctrine,  not  only  preceded  Luther  in  justification  by  faith 
but  also  in  giving  up  saint-worship,  which  Luther  did  not  give 
up  until  about  1523. 

At  Meaux  he  found  safety  and  rest.  He  found  relief 
from  the  perpetual  clamor  at  Paris  against  Luther  and  against 
his  own  doctrines.  He  also  found  congenial  surroundings. 
The  King's  mother  and  Margaret,  his  sister,  visited  Meaux 
soon  after  he  came  there.  Margaret  declared  that  the  King 
had  entirely  decided  to  let  it  be  understood  that  the  truth  of 
God  was  not  heresy.  A  few  weeks  later,  she  wrote  that  her 
mother  and  brother  were  more  intent  than  ever  on  the  refor- 
mation of  the  Church.  Meanwhile  Briconnet  prepared  to  re- 
form his  diocese.  Lefevre,  in  1523,  was  appointed  by  Bri- 
connet vicar-general  of  his  diocese.  Briconnet  invited  the 
leaders  of  the  Evangelicals,  Roussel,  Farel  and  others,  to  labor 
in  his  diocese.  They  went  everywhere  preaching  the  gospel, 
Lefevre  declared. 

"Kings,  princes,  nobles,  people,  all  nations  should  think 
and  aspire  after  Christ  alone.  Every  priest  should  resemble 
that  archangel  whom  John  saw  in  the  Apocalypse,  flying 
through  the  air,  holding  the  everlasting  Gospel  in  his  hands 
and  carrying  it  to  every  people,  nation,  tongue  and  king.  Na- 
tions awake  to  the  light  of  the  Gospel  and  inhale  the  heavenly 
life.  The  Word  of  God  is  all  sufficient.  Of  this  Church  it 
was  written,  "In  this  diocese  an  image  of  the  renovated  Church 
shines  forth." 

Lefevre,  with  several  friends,  was  once  engaged  in  conver- 
sation with  some  warm  partizans  of  Rome.    Lefevre,  warming 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  19 

up  at  the  prospect  he  seemed  to  behold,  exclaimed :  "Already 
the  gospel  is  winning  the  hearts  of  the  nobles  and  of  the  com- 
mon people  alike.  Soon  it  will  spread  all  over  France  and 
cast  down  the  inventions  which  the  hand  of  man  hath  set 
up."  "Then,"  angrily  retorted  De  Roma,  a  Dominican  monk. 
"Then  I  and  others  hke  me  will  join  in  preaching  a  crusade; 
and  should  the  King  tolerate  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel, 
we  will  drive  him  from  his  kingdom  by  means  of  his  own 
subjects."     Lefevre  wrote  to  Farel,  July  6,  1524: 

"You  can  scarcely  imagine  with  what  ardor  God  is  mov- 
ing the  minds  of  the  simple  in  some  places  to  embrace  his 
Word  since  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  have  been  pub- 
lished in  France,  though  you  will  justly  lament  that  they  have 
not  been  scattered  more  widely  among  the  people.  The  attempt 
has  been  made  to  hinder  the  work  under  cover  of  the  author- 
ity of  parliament;  but  our  most  gracious  King  has  become  in 
this  matter  the  defender  of  Christ's  cause,  declaring  it  to  be 
his  pleasure  that  his  kingdom  shall  hear  the  Word  of  God 
freely  and  without  hinderance  in  the  language  which  it  under- 
stands. At  present  throughout  our  entire  diocese  on  feast- 
days  and  especially  on  Sunday,  both  the  epistle  and  gospel  are 
read  to  the  people  in  the  vernacular  tongue  and  the  parish 
priest  adds  a  word  of  exhortation  to  the  epistle  or  gospel  or 
both  at  his  discretion." 

Lambert  of  Avignon  also  wrote  hopefully,  January  20, 
1523,  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony:  "France  is  almost  entirely 
in  the  Evangelical  movement."  A  cotemporary,  chronicling 
in  1526,  said  that  Meaux  was  full  of  the  false  doctrine  of 
Luther.  He  made  the  cause  of  all  the  trouble  to  be  Lefevre, 
a  priest  and  scholar,  who  rejected  pictures  from  the  Churches, 
forbade  the  use  of  holy  water  for  the  dead  and  denied  the 
existence  of  purgatory. 

And  now  begins  to  appear  another  great  labor  of  Le- 
fevre's,  which  revealed  his  Protestantism.  Lefevre,  says  Dou- 
mergue,  was  not  only  the  first  Reformer  but  also  the  great 
Biblical  Reformer, — that  is,  he  was  the  first  great  translator 
of  the  Bible  into  the  vernacular.  His  work  on  the  Psalms  and 
the  Pauline  Epistles  was  followed  in  1522  by  his  Commentary 
on  the  Gospels.  In  it  he  maintained  "that  the  Word  of  God 
and  not  the  doctrines  of  men  point  out  the  way  of  salvation. 
He  prayed  for  a  return  to  the  pure  faith  of  the  Church  of  the 


20  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

martyrs."  In  its  preface  he  declared  that  "those,  who  forbid 
the  common  people  to  read  the  good  news  which  the  Lord 
commanded  should  be  preached  to  every  creature,  would  have 
to  answer  for  their  sin  before  his  tribunal.  Bishop  Briconnet 
had  Lefevre's  Bible  translations  printed  for  the  education  of 
the  clergy  in  his  diocese.  But  the  Sorbonne  at  Paris  placed 
them  in  the  Index  of  heretical  books  and  only  through  the 
mediation  of  the  King  was  a  farther  investigation  stopped.  In 
1525  Lefevre  published  his  Commentary  on  the  Catholic 
Epistles.  In  this  he  first  uncovers  the  errors  of  the  Vulgate. 
At  the  request  of  the  King  and  Queen  Margaret  and  also 
of  Briconnet,  he  began  a  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment into  the  French  language.  This  was  made  from  the 
Vulgate  and  appeared  in  1523  and  the  Psalms  in  1525.  By 
1530  Lefevre  had  the  whole  Bible  published  in  French.  This 
was  a  great  boon  to  the  French,  to  whom  the  Bible  had  been 
a  closed  book.  The  learned  might  familiarize  themselves  with 
its  contents  by  reading  the  Vulgate ;  but  others,  acquainted 
only  with  their  mother  tongue,  were  reduced  to  the  necessity 
of  using  a  rude  version  in  which  the  text  and  glosses  were 
intermingled  in  inextricable  confusion  and  the  Scriptures  were 
made  to  countenance  the  most  absurd  abuses.  But  although 
they  had  had  this  earlier  translation,  Lefevre  was  the  first 
to  depart  from  the  Vulgate,  which  the  previous  ones  had 
closely  followed.  For  although  he  translated  from  the  Vul- 
gate, he  enriched  it  here  and  there  by  comparison  with  the 
Greek.     His  work  in  Bible  translation  was  very  remarkable, 

1.  In  1509  and  1534  a  Latin  translation  of  the  Psalms; 

2.  A  Latin  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  published 
three  times ; 

3.  A  French  translation  of  the  New  Testament.   1523; 

4.  A  French  translation  of  the  Psalms,  1524  and  1528; 

5.  A  French  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  1528; 

6.  A  French  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  into  French  in 

1530; 

7.  A  French  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  with  critical, 
marginal  corrections  in  1534. 

When  he  began,  he  closely  followed  the  Vulgate,  as  Wick- 
liflfe  had  done  in  his  first  translation  into  English.  But  more 
and  more  in  his  later  works  he  introduced  corrections  from  the 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  21 

Greek  and  Hebrew  until  in  1534  he  published  the  first  real 
critical  edition.  This  edition  (1534  and  also  1541)  was  con- 
sidered so  dangerous  by  the  Catholics  that  it  was  prohibited 
in  the  Netherlands  where  it  was  published  and  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  because  it  departed  from  the  sacred  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate. It  was  destroyed  with  great  rigor  by  the  Catholics.  All 
this  Bible  translation  was  a  magnificent  undertaking,  prompted 
by  a  fervent  desire  to  promote  the  spiritual  interests  of  his 
countrymen.  Only  one,  who  has  the  Protestant  spirit  and  who 
believed  in  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  Protestantism 
which  was  denied  by  Romanism,  namely,  that  the  Bible  must 
be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  common  people  in  the  vernacular, 
could  ever  have  been  lead  to  undertake  such  a  great  under- 
taking. Lefevre's  translation  was  the  basis  of  all  later  trans- 
lations into  French.  It  is  worthy  to  rank  with  the  translation 
of  Luther,  which  it  preceded  by  four  years,  and  also  with  the 
Swiss  Reformed  translation  of  Zurich  into  German  with  which 
it  synchronized. 

In  1525  came  the  great  test  of  Lefevre's  life.  Briconnet, 
his  bishop,  had  called  down  on  himself  the  wrath  of  the  Catho- 
lic authorities  around  him  by  his  Evangelical  reforms.  Beda, 
the  leader  of  Romanism,  was  especially  active  and  it  was  of 
Beda  that  Erasmus  once  declared :  "In  one  Beda  there  are 
3,000  monks."  In  1525  came  the  opportunity  of  the  enemies 
of  Protestantism.  The  king  of  France  was  defeated  at  Pavia 
and  taken  prisoner  to  Spain.  In  his  absence,  Romanism 
seized  the  opportunity.  It  introduced  the  inquisition  into 
Paris.  It  took  action  against  Briconnet.  The  Protestants  were 
the  more  helpless  as  Margaret,  the  king's  sister,  had  also 
gone  to  Spain  to  visit  Francis.  Briconnet  did  not  have  the 
moral  courage  to  resist  his  superiors.  On  October,  1525,  he 
issued  a  decree,  at  the  order  of  parliament  in  Paris,  condemn- 
ing Luther's  doctrines.  Lefevre's  translations  were  ordered  to 
be  burned.  Lefevre  was  very  awkwardly  placed.  But  did 
he  go  back  on  his  Evangelical  views  as  Briconnet  did?  He 
would  have  done  so  had  he  been  the  weakling  he  has  been 
hitherto  depicted  by  his  biographers.  No,  he  refused  to  recant 
his  Evangelical  views  and  go  back  to  Romanism.  Rather  than 
do  so,  he  fled  to  Germany  in  company  with  Roussel.  They 
went  to  Strassburg  where  they  were  gladly  received  by  its 


22  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Reformers,  Bucer  and  Capito.  He  stayed  with  Capito.  And 
there  he  would  probably  have  stayed  and  become  a  Reformer 
just  like  his  pupil  Farel  and  like  Calvin  who  came  there  later. 

Now,  if  Lefevre  had  been  the  timid  man  he  has  been  sup- 
posed to  be,  how  did  he  get  courage  to  flee.  If  he  had  given 
up  his  Protestantism  as  did  Briconnet,  he  would  not  have  been 
worthy  of  being  a  Reformer;  but  just  because  he  did  not  give 
it  up,  he  was  a  Reformer.  Contrast  him  with  Erasmus,  who 
while  he  attacked  some  of  the  errors  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
yet  was  always  careful  never  to  go  too  far.  He  always  turned 
tail  sufficiently  to  put  himself  under  the  aegis  of  Rome.  Or  to 
come  nearer  home,  why  did  not  Lefevre  give  up  his  Protestant- 
ism as  did,  at  that  time,  his  bosom  friend  and  former  defender, 
Clichtove.  Rome  would  have  received  him  back  as  it  did 
Clichtove  for  a  "slight  recantation."  Ah,  Lefevre  is  more  of 
a  Reformer  than  he  has  been  reputed  to  be. 

But  a  fortunate  providence  led  to  his  return  to  France. 
The  King,  Francis  I,  having  returned  to  France  from  his  im- 
prisonment in  Spain,  recalled  him  to  Paris.  He  gave  him  a 
position  in  the  royal  family  as  tutor  of  his  children  and  as 
librarian  of  the  chateaux  of  Blois,  where  he  could  continue  his 
labors  on  the  Bible.  And  when  Lefevre  came  back  to  France 
at  the  King's  invitation,  was  it  on  condition  that  he  give  up 
his  Evangelical  views?  No,  he  came  back  holding  them  as 
clearly  as  before  as  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  his  "Mass 
of  Seven  Points." 

But  his  position  at  Paris  was  uncomfortable,  indeed  it 
became  dangerous.  The  Catholics  around  him  knew  his  Evan- 
gelical views.  So  Queen  Margaret,  the  king's  sister,  came  to 
his  rescue.  She  wrote  to  her  nephew,  the  grandmaster  of 
Montmorency,  "That  good  man,  Lefevre,  writes  to  me  that  he 
is  uncomfortable  at  Blois,  because  the  folks  are  trying  to 
annoy  him.  For  change  of  air  he  would  willingly  go  to  see 
a  friend  of  his  if  such  were  the  King's  pleasure."  The  request 
was  granted,  for  "the  friend"  mentioned  was  the  Queen  her- 
self, for  she  had  been,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of  his  early  con- 
verts. As  early  as  1521  she  read  her  Bible  and  had  it  ex- 
plained to  her  by  Lefevre.  In  1527  he  had  rekindled  her 
faith  as  he  said  to  her,  "Do  not  be  afraid,  the  election  of  God 
is  mighty."    So  Lefevre,  for  the  rest  of  his  life,  was  a  resident 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  23 

at  her  court  at  Nerac,  where  he  was  safe.  There  he  concen- 
trated his  attention  more  and  more  on  his  pubHcation  of  the 
Bible. 

But  the  papal  party  did  not  despair  of  winning  Lefevre 
back.  A  letter  of  the  papal  nuncio  Aleander  of  December  30, 
1 53 1,  has  recently  been  exhumed  in  the  Vatican  records,  which 
showed  that  there  was  correspondence  between  the  heads  of 
the  papal  Church  about  him.  Aleander,  in  this  letter,  strongly 
expressed  himself  in  favor  of  making  the  effort.    He  said : 

"Lefevre's  'few  errors'  had  at  first  appeared  to  be  of 
great  moment,  because  they  were  published  at  a  time  when  to 
change  or  correct  the  most  insignificant  syllable  or  a  faulty 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  when  approved  by  the  Church, 
was  an  unheard  of  innovation.  But  by  the  time  he  now  wrote, 
more  important  questions  had  come  to  arrest  attention  and 
the  mere  matter  of  re-translation  without  introducing  un- 
sound doctrine  seemed  to  be  of  little  or  no  consequence.  Let 
Lefevre  but  leave  the  heretical  company,  which  he  has  kept 
and  make  but  the  least  bit  of  retraction,  respecting  a  few 
passages  and  the  whole  matter  would  be  at  once  arranged." 

"But  though  this  effort  was  thus  talked  of,  nothing  came 
out  of  it,  probably  because  Lefevre  was  too  firm  in  his  Evan- 
gelical principles. 

Just  two  years  before  Lefevre's  death,  occurred  two  very 
significant  events  in  his  life.  The  first  was  the  visit  of  Calvin 
to  him.  Calvin  was  staying  at  Angouleme  with  Du  Tillet,  not 
far  from  Nerac,  and  he  visited  Lefevre  at  Nerac  in  April, 
1534.  Calvin,  Hke  all  French  Protestants  of  that  day,  felt 
himself  indebted  to  Lefevre.  For  although  he  had  not  been 
a  pupil  of  Lefevre's,  yet  it  had  been  a  pupil  of  Lefevre's, 
Roussel,  who  seems  to  have  exerted  great  influence  over  him 
at  the  crisis  of  his  life,  his  conversion.  It  is  a  remarkable  co- 
incidence that  just  at  the  time  that  Lefevre  had  finished  and 
published  a  better  French  version  of  the  Scriptures  than  had 
before  existed,  there  should  come  to  him  the  young  man, 
John  Calvin,  who  was  to  reduce  the  doctrines  of  "Scripture 
to  an  orderly  arrangement  in  his  "Institutes  of  Theology." 
When  Calvin  arrived  at  the  chateaux  and  asked  for  Lefevre, 
they  told  him  Lefevre  was  "a  little  bit  of  a  man,  as  old  as 
Herod,  but  as  lively  as  gunpowder."  Beza  says  the  aged  man 
received  the  young  man  and  looked  upon  him  with  pleasure, 


24  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

prophesying  that  he  would  be  an  instrument  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  heavenly  kingdom  in  France.  Fl  de  Raemond 
completed  the  description  of  this  interview  thus :  Lefevre  left 
himself  go  over  to  the  opinions  of  Calvin  more  than  Roussel 
did.  He  desired  him  nevertheless  to  hold  back,  from  the  fear 
that  he  had  that  fervid  spirit  that  might  lead  to  disorder.  Le- 
fevre gave  him  in  parting  his  advice  that  he  should  govern 
his  opinions  by  those  of  Melancthon.  In  truth,  Lefevre  was  in 
spirit  the  French  Melancthon,  mild,  yet  true  to  Protestantism. 
No  wonder  then  he  chose  Melancthon  as  the  model  for  Calvin  to 
follow. 

Lefevre  told  Calvin  how  the  opposition  of  the  Sorbonne 
had  compelled  him  to  take  refuge  in  the  south  so  as  to  escape 
the  bloody  hands  of  the  doctors.  Calvin  was  deeply  impressed 
by  Lefevre,  whose  white  hair  and  broken-down  appearance 
(he  was  about  99  years  old)  had  about  him  a  living  force  and 
meekness,  a  moral  grandeur  and  heavenly  brightness  that 
charmed  him.  He  urged  Lefevre,  whose  idealistic  views  led 
him  to  frequently  repeat,  "There  ought  to  be  only  one  Church," 
to  greater  decision.  Lefevre  was  moved  and,  weeping,  said : 
"Alas,  I  know  the  truth,  but  I  keep  myself  apart  from  those 
who  confess  it."  Then  wiping  his  eyes,  he  gave  Calvin  his 
benediction.  Lefevre  was  also  greatly  impressed  with  Calvin. 
He  had  already  sent  forth  one  Reformer,  Farel,  with  the 
words:  "God  will  renew  the  face  of  the  world  and  you  will 
see  it."  Now  he  sends  forth  another  Reformer  in  Calvin. 
He  perceived  that  a  greater  than  Farel  was  before  him.  "Young 
man,"  he  said  to  him,  "you  will  some  day  be  a  powerful  instru- 
ment in  the  Lord's  hand.  The  world  will  obstinately  resist 
and  everything  will  seem  to  conspire  against  the  Son  of  God. 
But  stand  firm  on  that  rock  and  many  will  be  broken  by  it. 
God  will  make  use  of  you  to  restore  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
France."  Such  was  the  prophecy  of  the  aged  seer  already 
breathing  the  air  of  eternity.  It  could  hardly  be  expected  that 
at  that  great  age  (99)  he  would  go  out  with  Calvin  to  new 
work.  His  confession  of  weakness  then,  can  be  somewhat 
condoned,  when  one  remembers  that  such  weakness  often 
comes  on  the  very  aged.  Old  age  naturally  loves  rest  and 
Lefevre  at  his  great  age  yielded  to  this  peculiarity.  But  this 
scene  was  like  the  transferring  of  a  spiritual  sceptre.     Just 


I 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  25 

as  Elijah  transferred  his  mission  and  power  to  Elisha  when 
his  mantle  fell  to  earth  from  the  fiery  chariot  in  the  skies,  so 
Lefevre  here  transferred  the  spiritual  leadership  of  the  French 
Reformation  to  Calvin. 

The  second  important  event  of  that  year  (1534)  was  the 
"Mass  of  Seven  Points,"    When  Lefevre  went  back  to  France 
from  Strassburg  to  live  with  King  Francis  I  and  Queen  Mar- 
garet, was  it  on  condition  that  he  give  up  all  his  Evangelical 
views  and  customs?     Not  at  all.     He  still  retained  them  as 
strongly  as  ever.     If  he  had  not,  he  would  have  ceased  to  be 
a  Reformer.    But  just  because  he  retained  them,  he  continued 
to  be  a  Reformer,   for  he  had  suffered  for  them.     In  Mar- 
garet's court,  her  chaplain,  Roussel,  did  not  pray  to  the  Virgin. 
And    he    celebrated    the    Lord's    Supper   at   times   after    the 
Protestant  fashion.    By  1534  it  is  evident  that  these  views  were 
still  held  by  the  Reformers  of  Nerac.    It  is  also  revealed  that 
they  had  not  given  up  hope  of  gaining  the  king,  and  with  him 
France,  over  to  their  views.    For  the  "Mass  of  Seven  Points" 
was  the  last  attempt  of  Margaret  to  gain  her  brother,  the  king, 
over  to  Evangelical  views.     It  was  made  in  the  autumn  of 
1534  when  she  visited  him  at  Paris.     But  alas,  because  the 
placards  against  the  mass  had  been  posted  up  all  over  France, 
her  brother  was  just  then  very  angry  against  the  Protestants. 
He  replied  to  her  proposal:     "You  want  no  Church  and  no 
sacraments."     She  replied  that  it  was  necessary  at  that  time 
to  unite  the  whole  Church  under  one  man,  the  bishop  of  Rome; 
but  that  the  priests  ought  to  be  stripped  of  certain  scholastic 
doctrines  and  superstitious  practices  that  robbed  the  ritual  of 
the  Church  of  its  primitive  beauty.    She  hoped  by  thus  taking 
advantage  of  the  king's  weak  side— glory,  to  represent  to  him 
the  glory  he  could  get,  by  being  an  instrument  to  thus  unite 
the  Church.     She  then  took  from  her  pocket  a  paper  that  at 
her  request  Lefevre  had  drawn  up  for  her  before  she  left 
Nerac.     It  was  a  Confession  of  Faith  known  as  the  "Mass  of 
Seven  Points."    Its  contents  were  as  follows :   The  priest  will 
continue  the  mass,  only 

I.  It  will  be  a  public  communion  (no  private  masses  by 
priests  alone). 

■    2.  He  will  not  lift  up  the  host  before  the  congregation. 

3.  There  will  be  no  adoration  of  the  host  by  the  congre- 


26  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

gation  kneeling  when  it  is  lifted  up. 

4.  The  priests  and  the  people  Will  commune  in  both 
elements. 

5.  There  will  be  no  commemoration  of  Mary  and  the 
saints. 

6.  The  communion  will  be  celebrated  with  ordinary  bread 
(and  not  with  the  wafer). 

7.  The  priest,  after  breaking  and  eating,  will  distribute 
the  remainder  to  the  people. 

To  these  seven  points  of  the  mass  was  added  another, 
that  the  priests  were  to  have  the  liberty  to  marry.  One  can 
see  from  these  how  Protestant  Lefevre  still  was.  He  was 
farther  than  Luther  was  when  he  was  first  called  a  Protestant, 
because  he  denied  the  worship  of  Mary  and  the  saints  and 
would  use  bread  instead  of  wafers.  No  wonder  Francis  I, 
after  hearing  the  paper,  said  "And  what  is  then  left  of  the 
mass?"  This  incident  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  Lefevre's 
last  days.  It  gives  a  political  significance  to  his  conservatism. 
He  hoped  by  it  to  at  last  gain  the  king  and  the  court  of  France 
to  Protestantism.  It  failed;  but  Lefevre's  motive  must  be 
respected  though  this  has  been  forgotten  by  historians. 

Just  before  his  death,  Farel,  who  wanted  help  at  Geneva 
to  introduce  the  Gospel,  wrote  to  him  to  come  and  aid  him 
in  his  conflict  with  Romeanism.  The  venerable  man  shed 
tears  and  returned  thanks  for  what  he  heard.  But  he  declined 
Farel's  invitation.  This  was  natural  for  he  was  entirely  too 
old  to  take  part  in  a  disputation  as  Farel  desired.  This  has 
also  been  used  against  Lefevre  to  show  that  he  was  timid. 
Rather  it  should  be  remembered  that  by  this  time  Lefevre  had 
gotten  to  an  age  (being  nearly  one  hundred  years  old)  when 
people  don't  go  into  new  things  or  go  to  new  places  to  live ; 
for  old  age  is  naturally  opposed  to  change  of  abode.  Old  age 
loves  a  place  to  rest ;  and  Lefevre,  having  found  such  a  place, 
was  but  following  the  course  of  old  age  in  preferring  to 
stay  there. 

So  he  remained  in  his  asylum  until  1536,  when  he  died, 
a  centenarian.  The  following  scene,  just  before  his  death,  was 
told  of  him  by  Queen  Margaret  to  Elector  Frederick  II  of 
the  Palatinate  when  he  visited  Paris  in  1538.  Frederick's  sec- 
retary gives  it  thus : 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  27 

"The  excellent  man,  James  Lefevre  of  Etaples  in  Picardv, 
who  has  been  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  day,  seeing 
himself  cruelly  persecuted  in  Paris  by  the  followers  of  Sor- 
bonne,  retired  to  Nerac,  close  to  Margaret,  Queen  of  Navarre, 
sister  of  King  Francis  I.  That  princess,  who  loved  letters, 
received  that  excellent  old  man  with  joy  and  conversed  with 
him  often  about  many  serious  and  noble  affairs.  One  day, 
having  planned  to  dine  with  him,  she  gathered  together  a  num- 
ber of  learned  persons.  During  the  repast  Lefevre  appeared 
very  sad  and  sometimes  shed  tears.  The  Queen,  perceiving  it, 
asked  of  him  the  cause,  rallying  him  that  he  was  causing  a 
sadness  instead  of  contributing  to  their  recreation.  'Alas, 
Madame,'  he  replied  to  her,  'How  can  I  have  the  joy  of  con- 
tributing to  those  of  others,  being  a  wicked  man  on  the  earth.' 
She  replied,  'What  so  great  sin  have  you  committed,  you,  who 
seem  to  have  conducted  before  your  evil  age,  a  life  so  saintly 
and  innocent?'  'Madame,'  he  said,  'I  see  myself  at  the  age 
of  loi  without  having  touched  a  woman  and  do  not  at  all 
remember  to  have  any  fault  of  which  my  conscience  is  able 
to  charge  me.  But  I  have  one  sin  which  I  believe  is  not  able 
to  be  expiated.'  The  Queen  having  pressed  him  to  discover 
himself  to  her.  'Madame,'  said  the  old  man,  weeping.  'How 
can  I  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God?  I  have  in  all 
purity  taught  the  Gospel  of  his  Son  to  so  many  persons  who 
have  suffered  death  for  it,  while  I  have  always  sought  to 
avoid  it,  and  that  at  an  age,  when  far  from  fearing  it,  I  ought 
rather  to  have  longed  for  it.'  The  Queen,  who  was  naturally 
eloquent  and  who  was  not  ignorant  of  Scripture,  at  this  made 
a  beautiful  discourse  to  him,  showing  by  various  examples  how 
the  same  thing  was  attained  by  many  good  and  holy  persons 
who  reigned  with  God  in  heaven.  She  added  that  because  of 
some  great  sin  which  one  found  in  himself,  he  ought  not  to 
despair  of  the  mercy  and  goodness  of  God.  Those  who  were 
at  the  table  joined  their  consolations  with  those  of  the  princess. 
The  good  old  man  was  strengthened  by  them.  'I  shall  not 
rest,'  said  he,  'until  I  have  made  my  will  before  I  go  to  God, 
for  I  believe  that  he  calls  me.'  Then  casting  his  eyes  to  the 
Queen,  he  said,  'Madame,  I  make  you  my  heiress.  I  give  my 
books  to  Mr.  Roussel,  and  I  give  my  clothes  and  all  I  possess 
to  the  poor.  The  rest  I  commend  to  God.'  The  queen  smil- 
ingly said,  'But  what  of  the  inheritance  remains  to  me?' 
'Madame,  the  care  of  dividing  my  property  to  the  poor.'  'T 
will  do  so,'  repHed  the  queen,  'and  I  swear  to  you  that  I  will 
have  more  joy  in  that  than  if  the  King,  my  brother,  would 
make  me  his  heiress.'  Lefevre  then  appeared  more  joyful  than 
he  had  yet  been  and  said.  'Madame,  I  have  need  of  some  re- 
pose '  And  to  those  at  the  table  he  said  'Adieu.'  Theii  In- 
laid himself  on  his  bed  and  at  the  time  when  one  imagined 


28  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

that  he  slept,  he  passed  to  that  better  life  without  having  given 
any  signs  of  illness.  After  his  death  the  queen  gave  him  a 
magnificent  funeral,  desiring  also  that  he  be  covered  with 
marble  which  she  had  sculptured  for  him." 

Fl.  de  Raemond  recounts :  "I  remember  to  have  seen 
formerly  (in  the  Church  at  Nerac)  his  tomb  and  on  it  these 
words,  'I  leave  my  body  to  the  earth,  my  soul  to  God  and  all 
my  goods  to  the  poor.'  These  were  the  last  words  of  Lefevre, 
dying."  This  testimony  favors  the  authenticity  of  the  last 
conversation  between  Lefevre  and  Margaret. 

Such  was  the  life,  death  and  influence  of  Lefevre.  He 
was  the  man  who  virtually  made  the  Reformation,  especially 
for  France.  He  is  just  coming  to  his  rights  as  the  Father  of 
the  Reformers, — a  Frenchman  and  Reformed,  as  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  out  of  him  came  the  Reformed  Church  of 
France.  The  judgment  of  historians  is  coming  back  to  what 
D'Aubigne  wrote  in  1541,  "The  Reformation  did  not  come 
into  France  as  an  importation  from  abroad.  It  was  born  in 
French  soil.  It  sprang  up  in  Paris.  It  had  its  first  roots  in 
that  university  itself — that  second  great  influence  in  Romish 
Christianity.  The  glory  of  having  begun  that  work  does  not 
belong  to  Germany  or  to  Switzerland,  but  to  France."  And 
Polenz,  the  historian  of  French  Protestantism,  says  of  him, 
"Already  before  15 12,  at  a  time  when  Luther  went  to  Rome  on 
business  for  his  Order  and  at  an  epoch  when  Zwingli  had  not 
commenced  to  apply  himself  with  zeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  passed  the  Alps  with  the  Confederates  to  fight  for  the  pope, 
God  raised  up  a  little  man,  modest  in  birth  and  appearance, 
who  lighted  an  Evangelical  light  in  the  solitude  of  his  study." 

The  historical  significance  of  Lefevre  has  not  been  noticed 
sufficiently.  He  represents  the  first  step  in  the  Reformation, — 
an  attempted  reformation  in  the  Catholic  Church.  This  at 
first  was  the  aim  of  all  the  Reformers  until  driven  out  of  that 
Church.  But  Lefevre's  was  the  only  movement  where  it  really 
came  into  existence,  if  only  for  a  short  time.  For  five  years 
at  Meaux  (1520-5)  and  later  for  about  the  same  time  at  Nerac 
it  had  an  existence.  Lefevre  preferred  to  remain  in  the  Romish 
Church  if  he  could,  for  he  loved  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  But  if  necessity  came,  he  would  leave  the  Church  as 
he  did  in  fleeing  to  Strassburg  and  worshipping  for  a  time 


PROF.  JAMES  LEFEVRE  29 

with  the  Protestants.  The  historic  significance  of  Fabrisian- 
ism,  as  Doumergue  calls  Lefevre  and  his  followers,  is  that 
such  a  movement  could  not  have  continued  existence — it  must 
fail.  The  Romish  Church  would  not  allow  herself  to  be 
reformed,  she  was  too  corrupt.  Had  Lefevre  been  younger  or 
lived  later  he  would  soon  have  been  forced  out  of  the  Catholic 
Church  by  the  logic  of  events.  The  school  of  Lefevre  was  the 
first  Protestant  school,  the  only  one  that  seemed  to  succeed 
within  the  Romish  Church  for  a  time.  It  should  not  be 
criticized  as  it  has  been.  It  occupies  a  very  important  place 
historically  in  the  development  of  Protestantism.  For  out  of 
Meaux  came  the  first  and  bravest  of  the  martyrs.  And  out 
of  Nerac  came  the  great  Protestant  queen,  Jeanne  D'Albret. 
And  from  Lefevre  came  Farel.  But  the  hour  had  now  come 
for  this  school  to  disappear.  Rome,  while  temporarily  allow- 
ing it,  did  not  want  it  to  continue.  And  with  the  death  of 
Lefevre  the  Lefevre  type  of  Protestantism  passed  away  and 
the  new  type  of  Calvinism  came.  As  Doumergue  aptly  puts  it : 
"When  Lefevre  died,  the  age  of  Fabrisianism  was  over,  the 
age  of  Calvinism  was  to  begin."  Nevertheless  Lefevre  and 
his  school  occupy  an  interesting  and  important  place, — are  an 
important  link  in  the  Reformation  of  which  too  little  has  been 
made.  And  Lefevre,  little  but  grand  old  man  in  old  age,  fight- 
ing like  a  tiger  against  the  scholastic  theology  at  a  time  of  life 
when  men  usually  fold  their  sails  to  rest  the  remainder  of 
their  days,  no  wonder  he  at  last  was  glad  for  a  rest  at  Nerac. 
But  he  stands  out  in  the  early  Reformation  as  a  lonely  yet 
grand  figure,  especially  as  we  see  those  who  read  his  books  and 
caught  his  inspiration,  Luther,  Zwingli,  Farel  and  Calvin,  rally 
around  him  to  reform  the  world. 


CHAPTER  11. 

WHO   WAS   THE   FIRST   REFORMER,    LUTHER   OR   ZWINGU  ? 

But  even  if  Lefevre  was  the  first  of  the  Reformers  (as 
we  showed  in  our  previous  chapter)  the  question  still  remains, 
how  about  the  two  other  Reformers,  Luther  and  Zwingli, 
which  of  these  was  the  earliest?  This  has  been  for  a  long 
while  a  bone  of  contention,  especially  between  the  Lutherans 
and  the  Reformed.  It  would  seem  to  be  an  easy  question  to 
answer.  But  in  reality  it  is  quite  difficult.  For  as  soon  as 
you  ask  it,  you  are  confronted  with  another  question,  "What 
is  it  that  makes  a  Reformer?"  "What  must  he  do  in  order  to 
be  a  Reformer?"  To  this,  three  answers  have  been  suggested, 
each  of  which  alters  the  date  sought  for. 

1.  Did  he  become  a  Reformer  when  he  was  converted  and 
began  preaching  the  Gospelf 

2.  Or  did  he  become  a  Reformer  when  he  threzv  off  the 
papacy? 

3.  Or  did  he  become  a  Reformer  when  he  virtually  com- 
pleted the  reformation  in  his  city  and  country? 

From  this  it  can  be  seen  how  difficult  this  question  is.  The 
reason  why  there  has  been  so  much  controversy  about  it,  has 
been  because  one  writer  meant  one  thing  by  a  Reformer,  and 
another  meant  another.  And  the  problem  becomes  even  more 
difficult  in  the  light  of  recent  research  and  especially  since  the 
publication  of  the  works  of  the  Reformers. 

Let  us  take  up  the  first  for  a  moment,  namely,  that  he 
became  a  Reformer  when  he  first  showed  that  he  was  con- 
verted. The  answer  to  this  will  depend  on  what  is  meant  by 
conversion.  This  is  the  more  difficult  in  the  case  of  both  of 
these  Reformers,  because  as  their  works  are  being  discovered 
and  published  it  is  evident  that  the  conversion  of  both  was 
gradual.  For  years  Luther  seems  to  have  been  coming  with 
increasing  clearness  to  justification  by  faith  and  during  those 
same  years  Zwingli  was  coming  with  increasing  clearness  to 
the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  through   Christ  and  not  through 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  31 

the  Virgin  and  saints.  But  how  far  in  these  doctrines  must 
a  person  go,  so  that  we  can  say  he  is  converted?  We  today 
reply,  until  a  man  has  a  definite  experience  of  forgiveness.  But 
you  can't  apply  that  test  to  persons  born  in  Catholicism,  though 
that  will  do  for  Protestants.  A  few  years  ago  in  Italy,  one 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Waldensian  Church  told  me  that  the 
Catholics  are  converted  but  not  like  Protestants.  They  did 
not  go  through  our  sense  of  conviction  for  sin ;  for  they  no 
longer  have  any  conscience  as  the  priest  has  been  so  long  their 
conscience  for  them.  We  cannot  then  expect  to  apply  our  Prot- 
estant test  to  the  Reformation.  Nor  could  we,  if  we  would.  The 
experience  of  both  Luther  and  Zwingli  is  not  given  us  with 
sufficient  fullness  to  enable  us  to  so  closely  follow  it.  Thus, 
if  belief  in  justification  by  faith  makes  a  man  a  Reformer,  then 
how  was  it  with  Luther?  For  though  he  advanced  to  that 
doctrine  just  after  the  theses  of  15 17,  yet  he  still  held  on  to 
Romish  doctrines  as  purgatory  and  saint  worship,  etc.  So 
that  it  is  a  really  serious  question  to  know  when  he  was 
converted. 

Again,  take  the  second, — that  a  man  becomes  a  Reformer 
when  he  throws  oflF  the  papacy.  Then  the  question  arises 
whether  that  means,  at  the  time  he  first  attacks  the  papacy, 
or  later  when  he  entirely  breaks  with  the  pope. 

Or  take  the  third, — was  a  man  a  Reformer  when  he  had 
reformed  only  his  city?  or  did  it  also  demand  the  reformation 
of  his  country? 

There  is  a  truth  in  each  of  these  and  we  will  consider  all 
together  in  the  discussion  of  this  problem.  We  will  try  to 
show  as  we  discuss  the  matter  which — Luther  or  Zwingli— 
was  first  in  each  of  these  stages.  We  will  first  of  all  take  up 
Zwingli's  conversion  and  then  Luther's. 

A — THE  CONVERSION  OF  ZWINGLI. 

The  conversion  of  Zwingli  can  be  taken  up  in  two  ways. 
We  can  study  it  according  to  the  places  where  he  lived.*  or 
we   can   study   it   according   to   the   persons   who    influenced 

*  We  have  taken  it  up  in  this  way  in  our  Mission-Study 
book,  "The  Famous  Reformers  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian 
Churches." 


32  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

him.  We  believe  that  the  latter  is  the  more  important  method, 
for  a  man  is  more  apt  to  be  influenced  by  persons  than  by 
places.  But  we  will  endeavor  to  somewhat  combine  the  two, 
giving  however  greater  prominence  to  the  influence  of  per- 
sons on  him. 

Zwingli's  preparation  to  become  a  Reformer  may  be  said 
to  have  passed  through  three  periods : 

1.  The  Churchly  humanism. 

2.  The  Evangelical  humanism. 

3.  The  Critical  humanism. 

I.  The  Churchly  humanism.  This  influence  came  to  him 
in  his  early  school  days.  And  here  there  were  three  different 
influences. 

The  first  was  that  of  his  uncle  Bartholomew  Zwingli,  who 
had  been  priest  at  Wildhaus  when  he  was  born,  and  who  had 
there  baptized  him.  This  uncle  later  removed  to  Wesen  and  it 
was  to  his  care  that  Zwingli's  father  committed  the  boy  for  his 
education.  The  uncle  believed  that  humanism  gave  a  more 
thorough  education  and  so  placed  his  nephew  under  its  mflu- 
ences.  How  mighty  is  the  influence  of  those  who  guide  the 
education  of  the  young.  It  is  to  this  uncle  that  we  owe  it 
that  Zwingli  became  a  humanist  and  then  a  Reformer.  The 
influence  of  this  uncle  on  Zwingli,  Stahelin  compares  to  that 
of  Staupitz  on  Luther.  He  died  in  1513,  before  the  Reforma- 
tion broke  out. 

After  young  Ulric  had  learned  all  he  could  in  his  uncle's 
school  at  Wesen,  he  was  sent  by  him  to  Basle  where  Binzli 
had  an  excellent  school.  Under  his  training  Zwingli  began 
revealing  his  special  ability  in  debate  and  also  in  music.  But 
Binzli  was  not  a  humanist,  although  later,  as  the  successor  of 
Zwingli's  uncle  at  Wesen,  he  followed  the  steps  of  his  dis- 
tinguished pupil,  Zwingli,  into  Protestantism.  It  was,  how- 
ever, at  the  next  school  that  Zwingli  attended,  that  he  first 
came  into  contact  with  humanism.  This  was  at  the  school  in 
Bern  under  Lupulus  or  Wolflein.  This  was  the  first  humanistic 
school  founded  in  Switzerland, — whose  curriculum  and  method 
of  study  followed  after  the  humanists.  Here,  says  Myconius, 
Zwingli  was  admitted  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  classics.  But 
Lupulus  was  one  of  the  conservative  churchly  humanists  who 
would  not  break  with  the  Catholic  Church. 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  33 

The  truth  is  that  there  were  different  kinds  of  humanists. 
Just  as  today  there  are  different  kinds  of  modernists  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  critical,  ethical  or  Evangelical ;  so  there  were 
differences  among  the  humanists.  Humanism  prepared  for 
the  Reformation,  only  in  different  degrees,  according  to  the 
type  of  humanist.    There  were : 

1.  The  pagan  humanists.  These  wanted  the  classic  lan- 
guages reintroduced  but  they  had  no  interest  in  religion. 
Often  they  were  rationalists  as  the  humanists  of  Italy.  Of 
this  kind  was  much  of  the  Renaissance  which  produced  skepti- 
cism and  Epicureanism,  because  culture  was  sought  as  an  end 
in  itself. 

2.  The  conservative  Churchly  humanists,  of  whom  Lupu- 
lus  was  one.  They  believed  in  utilizing  whatever  of  good 
there  was  in  humanism,  but  not  to  the  extent  of  affecting  their 
adherence  to  Catholicism.  Thus  Lupulus  was  a  devout  Catho- 
lic. He  made  pilgrimages  yearly  to  Einsedeln.  After  Zwingli 
had  been  under  him  at  Bern  he  made  a  pilgrimage  in  1520 
to  the  Holy  Land, — to  the  holy  sepulchre  at  Jerusalem.  He 
encouraged  the  sale  of  indulgences  by  the  Dominicans.  But 
he  was  a  sincere  man  and  finally,  in  1524,  broke  with  the  past 
and  became  a  valiant  soldier  for  the  Evangelical  views.  But 
at  the  time  that  Zwingli  was  under  him,  he  was  a  conservative, 
Churchly  humanist. 

3.  There  was  a  third  type  of  humanist, — the  Critical. 
These  went  farther  than  the  last  type.  They  wanted  a  refor- 
mation in  the  Church  ;  but  they  expected  this  reformation  would 
come  about  through  education, — that  is,  by  the  study  of  the 
classics.  They  spent  their  strength  on  a  better  education. 
They  wanted  no  break  with  the  Romish  Church.  'I'hey  were 
philological,  aesthetic  humanists.  Erasmus  was  one  of  this 
type. 

4.  Then  there  was  a  fourth  class,  the  Evangelical.  The\- 
wanted  a  reformation,  but  they  did  not  believe  it  would  come 
through  education.  It  must  have  a  deeper  impulse  than  that. 
It  could  only  come  through  a  spiritual  movement — a  religious 
revival.  They  put  religion  into  it.  They  wanted  to  use  their 
knowledge  of  the  classics  mainly  so  as  to  get  back  to  the  Bible. 
They  thus  began  setting  up  the  Bible  against  the  scholastic 
theology  of  their  day.    To  this  class  belonged  Lefevre.  of  whom 


34  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

we  have  spoken  and  Wyttenbach  of  whom  we  shall  speak. 
Luther  also  for  a  short  time  at  first  belonged  to  this  class. 

It  is  important  to  keep  these  different  classes  of  humanists 
apart,  for  except  the  first,  all  of  them  appear  in  connection  with 
Zwingli.  And  the  failure  to  keep  them  apart  has  brought  con- 
fusion into  Reformation  biographies  and  rendered  much  of  them 
useless. 

It  is  very  evident  that  from  so  conservative  a  humanist 
as  Lupulus,  Zwingli  would  get  no  impulse  toward  reforms. 
Indeed  Lupulus  did  not  even  try  to  protect  Zwingli  from  the 
efforts  of  the  Dominican  monks  to  get  him  to  join  their  Order. 
But  Zwingli's  uncle  was  more  advanced  than  Lupulus  and  in- 
fluenced his  father  to  take  him  away  from  the  influence  of 
those  monks,  for  he  was  more  of  the  Erasmian  type  of  human- 
ist, who  did  not  like  lazy  monks. 

So  Zwingli  was  sent  to  the  university  of  Vienna  at  the 
age  of  15.  This  university  has  hitherto  been  supposed  to  have 
been  entirely  conservative.  But  recent  researches,  as  by  Stahe- 
lin  and  others,  reveal  that  humanism  had  its  strong  represen- 
tatives in  its  faculty,  especially  in  Prof.  Conrad  Celtes  and 
Cuspianus.  Celtes  had  reorganized  the  curriculum  of  the  uni- 
versity. At  Vienna  Zwingli  took  the  philosophical  studies,  ac- 
cording to  Myconius,  and  so  came  under  Celtes,  so  that  Zwingli 
received  a  thorough  training  there  according  to  humanistic 
ideals.  It  made  classical  studies  an  entrancing  study.  Thus 
Vadian,  Zwingli's  fellow-student,  was  so  enamored  with  his 
Virgil  that  he  took  it  to  bed  with  him  as  a  pillow.  And 
Zwingli  shows  his  great  appreciation  of  this  university  by  later 
sending  students  to  it  from  Glarus,  his  first  charge,  rather  than 
to  Basle  where  he  had  also  studied.  He  seems  to  have  felt 
that  the  education  was  better  at  Vienna.  At  Vienna  Zwingli 
seems  to  have  been  greatly  broadened  by  the  variety  of  his 
studies  as  in  geography  as  well  as  in  the  classics.  But  what 
is  most  interesting  to  us  is  that  Zwingli,  in  going  to  Vienna, 
passed  from  the  conservative  humanistic  influence  of  Lupulus 
to  the  criticizing  humanism  of  Celtes,  who  was  like  Erasmus 
in  this  respect.  He  railed  at  the  superstitions  of  the  clergy 
and  reproached  the  priests  with  making  their  very  sanctuaries 
the  haunts  of  impurity.  And  yet  Celtes  was  careful  not  to  go 
too   far  and  was,   like  Erasmus,   rated   as   a  good   Catholic. 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  35 

though  liberal. 

2.  The  Biblical  humanism. 

The  second  great  influence  that  came  into  Zwingli's  life 
came  from  a  Biblical  humanist,  Prof.  Thomas  Wyttenbach  of 
Basle.  Most  important  for  Zwingli  was  it  that  in  1502  at  the 
age  of  eighteen  he  returned  to  Basle  as  teacher  in  the  school 
of  St.  Martin  and  also  to  attend  lectures  in  the  university. 
Here  it  was  that  he  met  the  man  who  planted  in  his  young 
mind  the  seeds  of  the  reformation.  Here  he  at  last  met  a 
Biblical  humanist  who  was  really  more  than  a  humanist,  for 
he  had  already  caught  a  glimpse  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine. 

But  as  Zwingli  came  to  Basle  in  1502  and  Wyttenbach  did 
not  begin  lecturing  at  Basle  until  1505,  the  question  arises  as 
to  what  Zwingli  was  doing  in  the  meanwhile.  We  know  he 
was  teaching  and  also  attending  the  university.  But  what  was 
the  condition  of  the  university  and  where  did  it  stand  in  rela- 
tion to  humanism?  Humanism  had  had  its  representatives 
there.  The  great  Reuchlin  had  taught  there,  but  had  left. 
And  since  the  departure  of  the  last  humanist  professor,  Brandt, 
in  1500,  scholasticism  and  conservatism  had  reigned  supreme 
with  their  pedantries  and  empty  formulas.  But  although 
there  was  conservatism  in  the  university,  in  other  things  there 
was  progress.  Literature  was  progressive  through  the  great 
printers  at  Basle,  Amerbach  and  Frobenius.  They  were  busy 
publishing  the  literature  of  humanism.  It  was  this  facility 
for  printing  at  Basle  that  finally  led  Erasmus  to  locate  there. 
These  publications  stirred  the  students  of  the  university  to 
new  thought.  Then,  too,  it  looks  as  if  there  was  a  religious 
awakening  in  the  Church  at  Basle,  though  Catholic.  For  a 
"Manual  on  Preaching  and  Pastoral  Work"  was  published 
there  (1503)  the  year  after  Zwingli  came  there,  which  was 
destined  to  have  ultimately  an  important  influence  toward 
Protestantism.  Its  author  was  a  priest  there,  John  Surgant. 
who  took  the  Protestant  position  that  of  all  the  duties  of  the 
minister,  preaching  was  the  most  important.  This  was  not 
in  stridt  accord  with  the  Catholic  viev/,  which  made  worship, 
especially  the  mass,  the  most  important.  This  book  not  only 
emphasized  preaching  but  also  set  up  the  Biblical  over  against 
the  scholastic  theology.  It  said,  "the  doctrines  of  philosophers 
and  heathen  contain  truth  and  error  mixed.     The   Catholic 


36  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

teachers,  however,  sometimes  weaken  from  the  truth  or  a41ow 
room  for  doubt,  for  all  men  are  liars.  But  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible  rest  on  the  truth  of  God  which  is  infallible."  Such 
was  the  teaching  of  this  book.  And  we  know  that  Zwingli 
was  impressed  by  it,  because  many  years  after  when  he  drew 
up  his  form  of  worship  for  the  first  Protestant  Lord's  Supper 
at  Zurich,  he  somewhat  followed  Surgant's  ideas.  The  im- 
pression made  by  this  book  on  Zwingli  was  doubtless  deepened 
by  the  order  of  the  new  bishop  of  Basle,  Christopher  of  Uten- 
heim,  who  .called  a  meeting  of  the  synod  of  Basle  and  ordered 
a  law  passed  that  each  priest  must  preach  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  Lesson  that  he  read  on  Sunday.  These 
movements  towards  greater  experimental  religion  probably 
affected  Zwingli. 

As  Wyttenbach  did  not  come  to  Basle  until  1505,  in  the 
last  year  of  Zwingli's  stay  there,  the  question  has  come  up  as 
to  Zwingli's  theological  views  before  Wyttenbach  cam.e  there. 
On  this  two  suggestions  have  been  made. 

1.  That  Zwingli  was  a  devout  Catholic  until  Wyttenbach 
came  and  that  then  Wyttenbach  opened  his  eyes  to  the  Evan- 
gelical truth  as  found  in  the  Bible.    This  was  the  old  view. 

2.  The  other  view  is  that  Zwingli  came  to  Basle  already 
inclined  to  the  newer  views  of  humanism  especially  through 
the  influence  of  Prof.  Celtes  and  others.  And  that  when  he 
had  to  sit  under  the  dry,  useless  sophistries  of  the  scholastic 
professors  of  theology  at  the  university  of  Basle,  his  liberal 
mind  reacted  against  their  narrowness  and  he  inclined  to 
greater  extremes  of  liberaHsm.  This  is  the  view  held  by  the 
later  biographers  of  Zwingli  as  Stahelin.  And  it  would  seem 
to  be  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Myconius,  the  first  biographer 
of  Zwingli,  who  says  of  him  at  Basle: 

"Because  the  regular  course  of  things  demanded  it,  he 
paid  diligent  heed  to  theology  in  the  scholastic  form.  What 
a  waste  of  time  it  involved,  since  it  was  such  a  jumble  of 
worldly  wisdom,  philosophy,  God,  inane  loquacities,  barbarities, 
vain  glory  and  things  of  that  description,  that  no  sane  doctrine 
could  be  reasonably  hoped  from  it." 

He  also  says  that  Zwingli  while  at  Basle  came  under  sus- 
picion of  heterodoxy,  because  he  defended  some  of  the  theses 
of  the  Italian,  lohn  Picus  of  Mirandola,  which  had  been  con- 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  37 

demned  by  the  pope.    Of  this  influence  of  Picus  we  will  speak 
later. 

One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that  no  matter  which  of 
these  views  is  held,  Wyttenbach  became  a  profound  influence 
in  Zwingli's  life.  For  Wyttenbach  confirmed  all  the  liberal 
tendencies  that  had  been  in  Zwingli  before.  And  he  added 
to  them  others  which  made  him  the  great  teacher  of  Zwingli's 
reformatory  views.  Fortunate  was  it  for  Zwingli  that  he 
came  under  the  tutelage  of  such  a  man  so  broadminded  and 
yet  so  holy  and  spiritual. 

As  the  life  of  Wyttenbach  is  comparatively  unknown  and 
his  value  in  Reformation  history  is  just  beginning  to  be  recog- 
nized, we  will  pause  upon  it.  He  was  an  humbler  teacher  than 
Lefevre,  whose  fame  was  recognized  all  over  Europe.  But 
though  humble,  he  was  Evangelical  even  before  Lefevre,  who 
as  we  have  seen  was  Evangelical  before  either  Luther  or 
Zwingli.  As  early  as  1506,  twelve  years  before  Lefevre,  he 
taught  at  Basle  the  two  fundamental  doctrines  of  Protestant- 
ism, namely,  (i)  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture  and  (2) 
salvation  by  Christ  and  not  through  Mary.  And  eleven  years 
before  either  Luther  or  Zwingli  denounced  the  evils  of  in- 
dulgences, he  donounced  them  as  a  fraud  and  cheat.  And  like 
Luther  at  Wittenberg,  he  had  a  disputation  about  them  at 
Basle  in  1506.  So  that  in  Wyttenbach  the  Reformed  had  an- 
other Reformer  beside  Lefevre,  who  was  before  Luther.  It 
may,  however,  be  replied  that  there  were  others  even  before 
Wyttenbach,  who,  although  in  the  Catholic  Church,  attacked 
indulgences.  Thus  John  Wessels,  one  of  the  "Reformers  be- 
fore the  Reformation,"  was  imprisoned  for  teaching  against 
indulgences.  But  we  reply  that  Wessels  and  the  others  were 
of  a  different  class  from  Wyttenbach.  They  were  in  no  way 
directly  connected  with  the  Reformation.  But  Wyttenbach 
was  very  directly  connected  with  it.  His  pupil  was  one  of 
its  founders.  And  he  himself  later  became  a  Reformer  also. 
For  he  later  became  the  Reformer  of  Biel  in  Switzerland.  If 
Luther  was  made  a  Reformer  by  nailing  up  the  theses,  then 
Wyttenbach  was  an  earlier  Reformer  for  he  did  the  same 
thing  at  Basle  in  1506. 

Thomas  Wyttenbach  was  born  at  Biel,  a  town  west  of 
Bern,  in  1472.     He  was  the  son  of  the  mayor  of  the  town. 


38  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

He  studied  diligently  in  the  school  in  his  native  town  and 
then  went  away  to  the  universities  to  study  for  the  priesthood. 
In  1496  he  went  to  the  university  of  Tubingen  in  southern 
Germany,  where  the  learned  Reuchlin,  the  leader  with  Eras- 
mus of  the  humanists,  taught.  Reuchlin's  Evangelical  tend- 
ency was  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  1499,  while  at  Stuttgard, 
he  lectured  to  the  monks  of  the  neighboring  monastery  of 
Denkendorf  on  the  art  of  preaching.  This  work  was  pub- 
lished in  1504  and  it  reveals  its  Evangelical  tendency  in  urging 
the  monks  to  become  acquainted  with  the  Bible.  It  is  easy 
to  see  that  the  teachings  of  such  a  man  would  influence  an 
earnest,  pious  student  like  Wyttenbach.  The  latter  remained 
at  Tubingen  four  years,  taking  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts 
in  1500.  At  Tiibingen  he  also  came  under  the  influence  of 
Paul  Scriptor,  who  taught  him  that  many  of  the  things  en- 
dorsed by  the  papacy  would  have  to  be  set  aside  and  that 
there  was  need  of  a  renovation  of  theology  from  Scripture 
and  the  Church  Fathers. 

From  Tiibingen  Wyttenbach  went  to  Basle  in  November 
26,  1505,  where  in  the  university  he  lectured  on  the  great  text- 
book of  Catholicism  at  that  time,  the  "Sentences  of  Lombard." 
But  he  also  lectured  on  the  New  Testament,  especially  on 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He  was  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  classics,  but  to  them  he  added  a  profound  knowledge 
of  the  Bible.  Out  of  the  barren  deserts  of  scholasticism,  so 
destitute  of  water,  it  was  his  delight  to  lead  his  pupils  to 
the  living  waters  of  God's  Word.  He  was  a  man  with  a 
message  for  that  age.  And  he  soon  gathered  around  him  a  set 
of  earnest  young  men.  Thus  Leo  Juda,  who  was  studying  med- 
icine, was  by  him  influenced  to  study  theology.  He  afterward 
became  Zwingli's  great  helper  in  the  Reformation.  Zwingli 
also,  who  seems  before  to  have  been  somewhat  undecided,  hav- 
ing been  captivated  by  humanism  and  in  love  with  his  teach- 
ing, now  fully  decided  under  Wyttenbach's  inspiration  to  study 
theology.  Capito  and  Pellican,  later  also  Reformers,  the  former 
at  Strassburg,  the  latter  at  Zurich,  seem  to  have  come  in  touch 
with  Wyttenbach  at  that  time  more  or  less.  Wyttenbach  was 
therefore  like  Lefevre,  though  in  a  lesser  degree,  the  father  of 
Reformers.  We  have  already  mentioned  four.  And  to  them 
ought  to  be  added  Haller,  the  Reformer  of  Bern,  who  later  at 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  39 

Bern,  was  influenced  by  Wyttenbach  to  become  a  Reformer. 
Leo  Juda  thus  writes  to  the  city  council  of  Biel  about 
Wyttenbach : 

"From  your  city  came  forth  this  man,  regarded  by  the 
most  learned  men  of  that  age  as  a  true  phoenix  on  account  of 
his  many  acquirements.  ZwingH  and  I  enjoyed  his  instructions 
m  1505.  Under  his  guidance,  from  polite  literature  in  which 
he  was  equally  at  home,  we  passed  over  into  the  more  earnest 
study  of  the  Bible.  His  sagacity  discerned  clearly  beforehand 
the  events  of  coming  years,  the  overthrow  of  the  papal  doc- 
trine of  indulgences  and  other  groundless  dogmas,  by  which 
for  many  centuries  Rome  had  held  unthinking  mankind  in 
bondage.  Whatever  of  thorough  knowledge  we  possess,  we 
owe  it  to  him  and  must  remain  his  debtors  as  long  as  we  live." 

Pellican  was  there  as  teacher  of  theology  to  the  Car- 
melite monks  and  he  also  aided  the  printers  at  Basle  in  their 
publications  of  the  works  of  Augustine  and  Origin.  He  de- 
clared that  at  that  time  he  gained  from  the  study  of  the  Church 
Fathers  the  first  doubts  about  indulgences,  purgatory,  trans- 
substantiation,  confession  and  the  power  of  the  pope. 

Wyttenbach  later  apologized  to  Zwingli  that  he  had  been  at 
Basle  a  babbler  of  scholasticism  and  had  caused  him  to  waste 
his  t>ime  on  the  trifles  of  sophistry.*  Zwingli  replied  to  him, 
June  15,  1523,  consoling  him  that  such  teaching  was  due  to 
the  custom  of  the  age  and  added  that  Wyttenbach's  example 
had  given  encouragement  to  all  noble  spirits  to  free  them- 
selves from  such  fetters.  What  Wyttenbach  refers  to  in  his 
letter,  we  know  not,  unless  it  was  that  in  lecturing  on  the 
Sentences  of  Lombard  he  naturally  followed  the  scholastic 
method  then  in  vogue.  From  the  contents  of  that  book  he 
could  hardly  do  otherwise.  But  in  lecturing  on  Romans  and 
the  New  Testament  he  seems  to  have  corrected  the  sophistry  of 
Lombard  by  the  truths  of  the  Bible.  Wyttenbach  pointed  out 
to  his  students  the  great  corruption  of  morals  in  the  Church 
and  attacked  this  and  also  held  up  the  great  doctrines  of 
Scripture.     He  made  Zwingli  get  hold  of  two  fundamental 

*  The  scholastic  theologians  would  discuss  such  dogmas  with 
their  students,  as  whether  after  the  resurrection  eating  and  drinking 
were  possible;  or  whether  God's  almighty  power  could  have  given  his 
Son  the  shape  of  a  stone  and  how  a  stone  could  preach  and  perform 
miracles.  A  fanatical  Franciscan  assured  his  hearers  that  Scotus  had 
done  as  much  for  the  Church  as  the  apostle  Paul. 


40  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

doctrines  of  Protestantism : 

1.  The  Supremacy  of  Scripture.  Wyttenbach  said  to  his 
students : 

"The  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  scholastic  theology 
will  be  swept  away  and  the  old  doctrine  of  the  Church  estab- 
lished in  its  room  on  the  foundation  of  God's  Word." 

2.  The  second  great  doctrine  was  that  Christ  is  the  sole 
Redeemer  from  sin.  In  1527  Zwingli  says  he  had  learned 
from  Wyttenbach  that : 

"The  death  of  Christ  was  the  sole  price  of  remission  of 
sin  and  faith  is  the  key  that  unlocks  the  treasury  of  that  re- 
mission to  the  soul." 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  gets  at  the  Evangelical  doc- 
trines a  little  different  from  Lefevre  or  Luther.  With  him  it 
is  not  Scripture  and  justification  by  faith  as  with  them,  but 
it  is  Scripture  and  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

As  a  result  of  this  second  doctrine,  Zwingli  was  led  to 
deny  another  Catholic  doctrine  that  was  then  very  prominent, 
namely,  indulgences.  For  if  Christ's  death  is  the  one  sufficient 
ground  of  salvation,  what  need  is  there  for  such  a  thing  as 
indulgences.  Christ's  death,  and  not  indulgences,  is  the  cause 
of  forgiveness  of  sin.    Zwingli  thus  wrote  in  1523: 

"At  the  beginning  of  15 19,  none  of  us  had  ever  heard  of 
Luther  except  that  he  had  published  something  against  in- 
dulgences— a  subject  on  which  I  did  not  require  much  enlight- 
enment, because  I  had  already  been  taught  what  a  cheat  and 
delusion  indulgences  were  by  my  master  and  beloved  teacher, 
Thomas  Wyttenbach  of  Biel,  who  had  held  at  Basle  some  time 
before,  in  my  absence,  a  disputation  on  the  subject." 

Thus  Wyttenbach,  ten  years  before  Luther,  attacked  the 
scholastic  theology  and  prophesied  the  time  was  not  far  dis- 
tant when  it  would  be  set  aside  and  the  old  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  and  the  early  Church  Fathers  restored  in  its  stead. 

Wyttenbach  did  a  great  service  to  Zwingli  at  Basle. 
Zwingli  had  come,  as  we  have  seen,  under  the  influence  of 
humanism  before  Wyttenbach  became  his  teacher.  He  could 
not  help  seeing  the  difference,  yes  often  the  contradiction,  be- 
tween the  humanistic  ideas  and  the  scholastic  theology.  To 
his  young  mind  there  was  such  a  contradiction  between  them 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  41 

that  they  could  not  be  harmonized.  But  Wyttenbach  came  into 
his  mind  with  great  power,  by  showing  to  him  that  there  was  a 
harmony,  instead  of  a  contradiction,  between  theology  and 
humanism,  that  by  making  the  Bible  the  sole  authority,  they 
were  harmonized.  Wyttenbach  showed  to  him  on  the  one 
hand,  the  usefulness  of  humanism  for  theology,  in  that  it  led 
to  a  scholarly  examination  of  the  original  sources;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  the  usefulness  of  theology  to  humanism,  to 
prevent  it  from  becoming  a  useless  and  merely  secular  science. 
True  theology  was  the  application  of  humanism  to  the  Bible. 
Wyttenbach  communicated  to  Zwingli  the  impulse  which  led 
him  to  search  the  Bible  in  the  original.  This  is  shown  by  his 
later,  study  of  the  Greek  and  later  still  of  the  Hebrew. 

We  thus  see  the  tremendous  influence  of  Wyttenbach  on 
Zwingli.  It  was  Wyttenbach  who  started  Zwingli  as  a  Re- 
former. He  planted,  as  Leo  Juda  said,  the  seed  thoughts  that 
afterward  came  to  harvest  in  the  Reformation.  His  was  the 
greatest  influence  that  came  into  Zwingli's  life,  though  it  did 
not  show  its  full  power  till  ten  years  later. 

Zwingli  never  forgot  the  impression  that  Wyttenbach  had 
made  on  him,  or  the  debt  he  owed  to  him.  He  always  looked 
back  on  him  as  the  greatest  of  his  teachers.  In  1521,  in  a 
letter  to  Haller,  the  Reformer  of  Bern,  he  sends  greetings  to 
Wyttenbach  who  was  then  with  Haller  at  Bern.  He  calls  him 
then  "his  dear  preceptor."  In  1527  he  speaks  of  him  as  "the 
most  learned  and  holiest  of  men."  Wyttenbach  continued  in 
correspondence  with  Zwingli  and  in  many  a  dark  hour  the 
latter  was  greatly  strengthened  by  him.  Of  this  correspond- 
ence only  one  letter  has  come  down  to  us,  a  letter  of  June  15, 
1523.  Wyttenbach,  though  he  had  been  Zwingli's  teacher,  yet 
now  looked  up  to  his  pupil  as  the  leader  and  desired  to  be 
taught  about  the  Lord's  Supper.  Zwingli  replied  to  his  ques- 
tion;  and  still  affectionately  looking  up  to  him  as  his  old 
teacher,  says:  "I  will  gladly  give  you  my  opinion  (about  the 
Lord's  Supper)  not  tha"t  you  need  it,  but  that  when  I  am  in 
error,  you  may  correct  me  and  bring  me  back."  Zwingli  then 
explains  to  his  former  teacher,  the  symbolical  view  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  over  against  transubstantiation,  which  he  attacks 
as  he  does  baptismal  regeneration.  He  held  that  in  both  sacra- 
ments,   faith    is    necessary    in    order   to   bring   blessing.      He 


42  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

emphasized   the   subjective   side  of   the   Lord's    Supper   over 
against  the  objective  aspect  of  the  CathoUcs. 

Before  leaving  Wyttenbach,  let  us  for  a  moment  pause  on 
his  later  Hfe.  He  left  Basle  in  1507,  a  year  after  Zwingli  left 
it.  He  went  back  to  his  native  place,  Biel,  as  priest.  In  1515 
he  was  called  from  Biel  to  Bern  as  priest.  There  he  threw 
his  life  into  the  Reformation  and  joined  the  Reformed.  He 
prepared  Bern  for  the  Reformation.  For  Haller,  later  the  Re- 
former of  Bern,  and  he  lived  together  and  Wyttenbach  taught 
him  what  he  had  previously  taught  Zwingli.  He  thus  helped 
to  make  Haller  a  Reformer  and  thus  added  another  Reformer 
to  the  list  of  his  students.  In  1522,  because  he  opposed  the 
burning  at  Bern  of  the  bull  against  Luther  he  left  Bern  and 
went  back  to  Biel,  his  native  place,  to  become  its  Reformer. 
There  he  began  the  Reformation  by  preaching  mightily  against 
indulgences.  He  declared  that  sin  is  not  a  thing  to  be  bought. 
He  also  attacked  the  mass  and  the  celibacy  of  the  priests.  He 
found  strong  support  in  his  congregation,  especially  among 
his  own  relatives,  one  of  whom,  Squire  Nicholas  Wyttenbach, 
became  his  patron.  Wyttenbach  was  one  of  the  first  priests  to 
marry  (1524).  He  thus  defied  ecclesiastical  authority;  and 
for  it  had  to  suffer  many  things.  Many  of  the  leading  citizens 
of  Biel  refused  any  more  to  attend  his  services  because  he  was 
married.  They  brought  complaints  against  him  before  the 
Swiss  Diet,  which  was  at  that  time  mainly  Catholic.  This 
diet  sent  a  message  to  the  town  of  Biel  against  him.  The 
council  of  Biel  then  ordered  all  married  priests  and  especially 
Wyttenbach  away  and  took  from  them  their  financial  support. 
Wyttenbach  replied  by  saying  that  the  marriage  of  priests  was 
not  forbidden  by  the  Bible.  He  preached  a  month  longer  in 
the  parish  Church,  but  then  had  to  leave  it.  He  then  preached 
in  a  chapel  and  later  in  the  houses  of  those  friendly  to  Evan- 
gelical religion.  He  had  great  crowds  in  the  chapel.  The  city 
then  compelled  him  to  leave  the  parsonage  and  he  lost  its 
financial  support.  He  therefore  became  very  poor.  But  he 
kept  up  a  gallant  fight  for  the  truth  and  many  rallied  around 
him.  Finally  he  was  at  last  compelled  to  leave  Biel.  He  went 
to  Bern.  There,  completely  worn  out  by  his  privations  and 
persecutions,  he  died  in  1526  at  the  age  of  54.  He  died  just 
too  soon.     Had  he  lived  a  little  over  a  year  longer,  until  after 


•WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  43 

the  Bern  Conference  made  all  that  canton  Protestant  and  Re- 
formed, he  would  have  had  the  joy  of  seeing  that  canton  be- 
come Reformed  and  with  it  his  city  of  Biel,  for  whom  he  had 
suffered  so  much.  But  his  preaching  and  sufferings  were  not 
in  vain.  For  a  strong  body  of  his  followers  at  Biel  formed 
the  nucleus  of  the  Protestant  Church  there,  and  to  this  day 
Biel  honors  his  memory  as  its  great  Reformer. 

Returning  again  to  Zwingli,  he  left  Basle  for  Glarus,  his 
first  charge,  in  1506.  There  the  teachings  of  Wyttenbach  seem 
to  have  slumbered  for  a  time.  This  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
novelty  of  his  work  as  priest  and  to  his  many  duties,  for  his 
parish  was  large,  including  one-third  of  the  whole  canton  of 
Glarus.  But  when  the  first  novelty  of  the  priesthood  began 
to  wear  off  we  find  him  revealing  the  impulse  Wyttenbach 
had  given  him. 

First  of  all  he  opened  a  humanist  school  at  Glarus.  Wyt- 
tenbach had  revealed  to  him  the  humanistic  methods  of  thor- 
ough scholarship.  And  as  he  loved  teaching  (he  had  been 
teaching  at  Basle  for  four  years  while  studying  at  the  uni- 
versity) he  gathered  around  him  some  of  the  brightest  young 
men  of  the  leading  families  of  Glarus.  Some  of  them  after- 
wards became  famous  as  Tschudi.  His  pupils  bear  strong  wit- 
ness to  Zwingli's  rare  ability  as  a  teacher  because  he  gave  to 
them  not  only  education  but  also  inspiration. 

2.  He  also  shows  Wyttenbach's  influence  by  beginning  at 
Glarus  the  study  of  the  Greek  language.  As  early  as  15 10  he 
had  sought  means  to  study  it  but  was  not  able  to  really  begin 
it  until  1513.     He  wrote  thus  to  Vadian,  February  23,  1513: 

"I  am  applying  my  ignorant  self  to  the  study  of  Greek 
and  Latin.  I  do  not  know  who  has  stirred  me  up  to  the  study 
of  Greek  unless  it  is  God.  I  do  not  do  it  on  account  of  glory 
for  I  do  not  look  for  that.  But  I  do  it  solely  for  the  sake  of 
sacred  literature." 

How  often  do  great  men  thus  feel  that  coming  events  are 
casting  their  shadows  before,  as  they  do  things,  the  significance 
of  which  they  do  not  at  the  time  grasp? 

In  1523  he  related  at  the  First  Disputation  at  Zurich: 
"Ten  years  ago  I  began  the  study  of  Greek  in  order  that  I 
might  learn  the  teaching  of  Christ  from  the  original  sources." 

He  studied  Greek  without  a  teacher  and  yet  became  so 


44  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

proficient  in  it  by  the  time  he  left  Glarus  that  he  could  already 
read  Lucian  and  the  New  Testament. 

He  also  began  the  genuine  study  of  the  Bible  while  at 
Glarus.  This,  like  those  already  mentioned,  came  from  the 
inspiration  given  him  by  Wyttenbach.  In  1522  he  thus 
describes  his  mind  at  that  time: 

"In  my  younger  days  I  was  as  much  devoted  to  worldly 
knowledge  as  any  of  my  age.  And  when  seven  or  eight  years 
ago,  I  gave  myself  up  to  the  study  of  the  Bible,  I  was  com- 
pletely under  the  power  of  the  jarring  philosophy  and 
theology.  But,  led  by  the  Scriptures  and  the  Word  of  God, 
I  was  forced  to  the  conclusion :  you  must  leave  them  all  alone 
and  learn  the,  meaning  of  the  Word  out  of  the  Word  itself. 
So  I  asked  God  to  give  me  His  light ;  and  then  the  Scriptures 
began  to  be  much  more  intelligible  when  I  read  them  myself 
alone,  than  when  I  read  much  commentary  and  exposition  of 
them.  Do  you  not  see  that  that  was  a  sign  that  God  was  lead- 
ing me?  For  I  never  could  have  come  to  such  a  conclusion 
by  my  own  small  understanding." 

In  these  researches  into  the  Bible  he  had  already  at  Glarus 
noticed  a  difference  between  the  Bible  and  Jerome.  We  thus 
see  how  far  he  had  come  at  Glarus  under  the  impulse  given 
him  by  Wyttenbach  years  before. 

But  we  remarked  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  that 
places  as  well  as  persons  also  have  an  influence ;  and  before 
we  leave  Glarus,  we  must  notice  two  local  influences  that  came 
to  him  there  and  helped  prepare  him  to  become  a  Reformer. 

The  first  was  a  political  one.  He  had  gone  with  the  Swiss 
troops  three  times  to  Italy  as  their  chaplain.  This  helped  to 
open  his  eyes  to  the  evils  of  the  papacy.  For  there  was  an 
old  proverb:  "the  nearer  Rome,  the  worse  Christian."  Out  of 
these  experiences  grew  his  opposition  to  the  foreign  mercenary 
military  service  of  the  Swiss.  His  sermon  at  Monza  to  the 
s6ldiers,  exhorting  them  to  fealty  to  their  pledges,  made  for 
him  a  life-long  friend  of  the  later  burgomaster  of  Zurich, 
Roust.  He  saw,  too,  that  the  pope,  instead  of  trying  to  heal 
the  dissensions  between  the  nations,  tried  to  intensify  them  so 
as  to  weaken  his  enemies.  And  although  Zwingli  did  not  break 
with  the  pope  then,  yet  his  political  reaction  against  foreign 
service,  even  to  the  pope,  prepared  him  for  his  later  reaction 
against  the  pope  religiously.     It  was  the  entering  wedge  for 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  45 

further  cleavage  between  the  pope  and  himself  later. 

The  second  was  a  liturgical  one  and  this  came  to  him  in 
two  ways : 

(A)  The  first  came  to  him  in  Italy.  He  found  while  at 
Milan  that  the  mass  of  that  Church  differed  from  the  mass 
of  his  Church  at  Glarus  in  some  particulars.  Luther  had  also 
previously  made  the  same  discovery  that  the  Ambrosian  service 
at  Milan  differed  from  his  mass  at  Wittenberg.  It  omitted 
intercession  for  the  public  magistrates.  Zwingli  reasoned  thus 
about  the  matter: 

"Either  Ambrose,  from  whom  this  book  came,  made 
changes  in  the  Roman  mass  without  being  visited  with  cen- 
sure, or  the  Roman  ritual  had  taken  its  shape  since  the  time 
of  Ambrose.  In  either  case  the  liturgy  was  the  work  of  men 
and  subject  to  change." 

This  disposed  of  the  claim  of  the  Catholics  that  their 
liturgy  was  the  same  at  all  times  without  variation. 

(B)  A  second  liturgical  influence  came  to  him  from  Switz- 
erland.    He  says : 

"It  was  while  pastor  at  Glarus  that  I  came  across  at 
Mollis,  north  of  Glarus,  an  Obsequial,*  which,  although  old, 
was  complete.  And  there  stood  a  Latin  rubric  which  said,  that 
immediately  after  the  infant  had  been  baptized,  then  shall  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  be  administered  to  the  child, 
including  the  chalice  containing  the  blood.  How  long  this 
practise  was  observed  in  the  canton  of  Glarus  I  have  not  been 
able  to  find  out,  but  surely  it  was  not  two  hundred  years  since, 
in  Mollis,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  administered  in  both  kinds." 

He  thus  received  his  first  Protestant  impression  about  the 
Lord's  Supper,  that  the  wine  as  well  as  the  bread  should  be 
given  to  the  laity. 

We  have  thus  followed  the  influence  of  Wyttenbach  on 
ZwingH's  life  up  to  nearly  the  close  of  his  pastorate  at  Glarus. 
But  now  a  new  influence  begins  to  tell  upon  him,  the  third  in 
our  list— the  Erasmian.  But  before  taking  it  up  we  might 
note  that  there  is  a  third  person  beside  Wyttenbach  and  Eras- 
mus, who  has  been  mentioned  as  having  influenced  Zwingli 
considerably,   namely,   John   Picus   of   Mirandola.   an    Italian. 

*That  is  a  book  for  baptism,  burial  and  benediction  services. 


46  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

This  philosopher  had  some  influence  on  him  at  Basle  and  later 
at  Glarus.  This  is  shown  by  Myconius'  Biography,  where  he 
says  that  Zwingli,  when  at  Basle  (1502-6)  "because  he  had  not 
condemned  the  theses  of  John  Picus  of  Mirandola,  was  se- 
cretly spoken  of  by  certain  blockheads  as  a  heretic."  But  what 
the  theses  of  Mirandola,  that  Zwingli  refused  to  condemn,  were, 
we  do  not  know.  Of  the  thirteen  theses  condemned,  perhaps 
they  may  have  been: 

3.  "That  neither  the  cross  of  Christ,  nor  any  image  ought 
to  be  adored  in  the  way  of  worship." 

6.  "It  is  possible  for  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  present  at 
the  altar  without  the  conversion  of  the  substance  of  the  bread 
or  the  annihilation  of  the  state  of  being  bread."  (Mirandola 
seems  here  to  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  remanence,  for  which 
Huss  was  condemned — that  not  all  of  the  bread  was  changed 
into  the  body  of  Christ  but  that  some  of  it  remained  bread. 
This  was  a  lowering  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.) 

10.  "That  the  words:  'This  is  my  body,'  uttered  at  the 
consecration  of  the  bread  are  not  to  be  taken  as  an  actual  fact, 
but  merely  as  significatory,"  that  is,  as  a  mere  recital.  (This, 
too,  would  lower  the  idea  of  transubstantiation,  for  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine  held  that  the  utterance  of  these  words  performed 
the  miracle  of  turning  the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ.) 

But  we  do  not  know  which  of  them  he  refused  to  con- 
demn. All  is  in  confusion,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Sig- 
wart  suggests  two  others  of  the  theses  as  most  likely  to  have 
appealed  to  Zwingli.  The  whole  subject  is  so  uncertain  that 
we  do  not  take  Mirandola  up  as  one  of  the  great  influences  in 
Zwingli's  life.  The  only  sure  inference  that  can  be  made  about 
it  is  that  of  Myconius,  that  it  shows  that  Zwingli  was  inclined 
to  liberal  views  at  Basle. 

But  Zwingli  was  more  influenced  by  a  nephew  of  Picus, 
John  Francis  Picus,  who  later  influenced  him  toward  election, 
etc.  We  must  confess  we  do  not  understand  why  Calvinists 
of  the  Federal  School  have  been  so  chary  of  Zwingli.  Perhaps 
it  was  because  of  his  low  views  of  original  sin  where  he 
speaks  of  it  as  a  disease.  But  they  can  get  election, — all  they 
want  and  more, — out  of  Zwingli's  sermon  on  Providence.  Had 
Zwingli  not  been  killed  in  middle  life,  he  might  have  been  able 
to  somewhat  co-ordinate  these  extremes  of   statement.     On 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  47 

election,  providence,  and  some  other  points,  Zwingli  used  lan- 
guage like  that  of  the  younger  Picus. 

III.    THE   CRITICAL    HUMANISM. 

The  third  humanistic  influence  came  from  Erasmus. 
Erasmus,  like  those  of  the  first  class,  was  a  humanist; 
but  while  theirs  was  a  Churchly  humanism,  his  was  a  critical 
humanism.  It  also  differed  from  Wyttenbach's  in  not  Dcing 
thoroughly  Evangelical. 

Erasmus  was  undoubtedly  the  most  prominent  of  the  later 
humanists.  His  publications  had  gained  for  him  great  fame 
all  over  Europe.  Zwingli  came  into  contact  with  him  during 
his  pastorate  at  Glarus.  In  the  autumn  of  15 14  he  received  a 
letter  from  Erasmus,  couched  in  terms  of  polite  affection  and 
great  praise.  When  Erasmus,  after  his  stay  in  England  came 
to  Basle  in  1515,  Zwingli  visited  him  early  in  the  spring  of 
15 16.  And  after  his  return  home  to  Glarus  he  wrote  Erasmus 
a  letter  full  of  fulsome  praise  and  also  of  thanks.  To  this 
Erasmus  wrote  a  reply.*  The  influence  of  Erasmus  is  also 
shown  by  the  fact  that  several  of  Erasmus'  books  have  been 
found  in  Zwingli's  library.  Of  these  the  most  influential  seems 
to  have  been  Erasmus'  "Handbook  of  the  Christian  Soldier.'' 
This  was  a  popular  handbook,  describing  the  Christian  life.  It 
was  first  printed  in  1503,  but  Zwingli's  copy  is  of  the  year 
1 5 15,  so  that  it  probably  came  to  him  about  the  time  of  his 
association  with  Erasmus.  This  work  tries  to  reduce  religion 
to  its  symplicity  so  that  it  could  be  understood  by  every  one. 
It  also  tried  to  emphasize  the  difference  between  true  religion 
and  a  religion  of  mere  outward  forms  and  rites. 

It  was  this  work  of  Erasmus  that  led  Zwingli  to  doubt 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  intercession  of  the  saints, — his  first 
doctrinal  doubt  about  Romanism.  In  it  Erasmus  represents 
men  as  perishing  because  they  would  not  seek  help  in  Christ 
alone.    Zwingli  says  (1523): 

"I  shall  not  withhold  from  you,  dear  brethren  in  Christ 
Jesus,  how  it  was  that  I  arrived  at  the  firm  conviction  that 
we  need  no  other  Mediator  than  Christ  and  that  none  but 

*  Both  letters  are  given  by  Jackson  in  his  Life  of  Zwingli,  pages 
78-81. 


48  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Christ  alone  can  mediate  between  God  and  man.  Eight  or 
nine  years  ago  I  read  a  consolatory  poem  on  the  Lord  Jesus, 
written  by  the  profoundly  learned  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  in 
which  with  many  beautiful  words,  Jesus  complains  that  men 
did  not  seek  all  good  in  him,  so  that  he  might  be  to  them  a 
fountain  of  good,  a  Saviour,  comfort  and  treasure  of  the 
soul.  So  I  reflected,  well,  if  it  is  really  so,  why  then  should 
we  seek  help  of  any  creature.  And  although  I  found  other 
hymns  or  songs  by  the  same  Erasmus  on  St.  Anna,  St.  Michael 
and  others,  in  which  he  calls  upon  the  saints  of  whom  he  wrote, 
as  intercessors :  still  this  fact  could  not  deprive  me  of  the 
knowledge  that  Christ  was  the  only  treasure  of  our  poor  souls. 
I  began  therefore  to  examine  the  Bible  and  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  to  find  out  if  I  could  learn  from  them  concerning 
the  intercession  of  the  saints.  To  be  brief,  I  have  not  found 
it  in  the  Bible.  Thereupon  I  reflected:  If  that  is  so,  why 
then  do  we  seek  help  from  any  creature."* 

Of  this  work  Zwingli  wrote  February  20,  15 19: 

"I  do  not  ever  remember  to  have  received  such  fruit  from 
a  book  of  such  compass.  May  God  grant  that  this  noble 
heart  (Erasmus)  may  long  beat  for  us,  so  that  it  regales  us 
with  so  much  sweet  honey  at  the  table  of  Christ." 

Thus  at  Glarus,  Zwingli  lost  faith  in  one  of  the  tunda- 
mental  doctrines  of  the  Romish  Church,  the  intercession  of 
the  saints.  Christ  was  the  only  mediator  and  the  saints  were 
not  needed.  But  this  idea  of  Erasmus  was  built  on  a  previous 
idea  that  Wyttenbach  had  put  into  his  mind  and  which  had 
been  slumbering  there,  namely,  that  sins  are  forgiven,  not  by 
the  Virgin  Mary,  but  by  the  ransom  of  Christ.  It  was  Erasmus 
who  roused  in  him  the  seed  thought  planted  by  Wyttenbach  ten 
years  before.  "As  iron  sharpeneth  iron,"  so  Erasmus  sharp- 
ened Wyttenbach's  teaching.  Together  they  made  Zwingli  a 
Reformer.  How  true  what  our  Savior  said :  "One  soweth  and 
another  reapeth."  Erasmus'  idea  would  not  have  been  the 
spark  to  kindle  the  fire  had  not  Wyttenbach  laid  the  wood 
there.  In  the  loom  of  any  man's  life  how  marvelously  the 
influences  of  diflFerent  men  are  interwoven  by  the  hand  of 
God.    Zwingli  thus  wrote  in  a  letter: 

"Thus  have  I  taught.  Yes  it  is  true,  why  seek  our  help 
from  the  creature.     Christ  is  the  sole  treasure  of  our  poor 

*  See  also  Egli,  page  35. 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  49 

soul.  Then  searching  for  what  the  Scripture  taught  concern- 
ing the  intercession  of  the  saints  I  did  not  at  all  find  it  there. 
Therefore  Jesus  is  the  Source  of  every  good.  He  is  our  only 
Saviour  and  our  only  hope." 

Erasmus  thus  led  Zwingli  to  give  up  saint-worship  because 
not  Biblical.  Erasmus  gave  Zwingli  the  inspiration  to  this, 
but  he  stopped  there.  But  Zwingli  went  beyond  Erasmus.  He 
carried  out  the  logic  of  Erasmus'  writings.  Erasmus  gave  him 
the  key,  Zwingli  unlocked  the  door  with  it.  The  old  proverb 
used  to  be,  "Erasmus  laid  the  egg  of  the  Reformation,  but 
Luther  hatched  it."  But  this  was  far  truer  of  Zwingli  than 
of  Luther.  For  Zwingli  was  far  more  closely  associated  with 
Erasmus  than  was  Luther.  For  while  Erasmus'  influence  on 
Luther  was  indirect,  on  Zwingli  it  was,  as  we  see  here,  direct. 
So  that  the  proverb  ought  to  be  changed  to  "Erasmus  laid 
the  egg  of  the  reformation  and  Zwingli  hatched  it." 

Such  was  the  state  of  mind  in  which  Zwingli  left  Glarus 
and  went  to  Einsedeln*  to  be  preacher  in  the  abbey.  His  old 
beliefs  were  beginning  to  crumble.  The  Scripture  was  becom- 
ing more  and  more  the  form  by  which  he  measured  everything. 
Then  just  at  that  psychological  moment,  with  his  mind  in  that 
open  condition,  came  in  May,  15 16,  the  greatest  gift  of  Eras- 
mus to  him:  "The  Greek  New  Testament"  of  1516.  To  under- 
stand how  great  a  boon  this  was  to  him,  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  there  was  no  Greek  Testament  in  circulation  at  that  time, — 
the  Latin,  the  sacred  language  of  the  Romish  Church,  had 
completely  supplanted  it.  Zwingli,  with  his  increasing  knowl- 
edge of  Greek,  could  get  at  the  Greek  New  Testament  only 
as  its  verses  were  scattered  here  and  there  through  the  works 
of  Church  Fathers.  But  now  a  book  came  to  him  enabling  him 
to  read  the  Greek  Testament  as  a  whole.  It  did  not  take  him 
long,  with  his  previous  predilections  to  liberal  views,  to  notice 
the   difference  between  the   Greek   New   Testament   and   the 

*  We  might  pause  here  to  note  the  local  influence  that  came  to 
Zwingli  at  Einsedeln  after  leaving  Glarus.  The  quietness  and  seclu- 
sion of  the  place  and  the  lack  of  pastoral  duties  gave  him  much 
time  for  study.  The  gross  superstitions  of  the  place  seem  to  have 
produced  in  him  a  reaction  against  saint-worship.  He  also  found  there 
a  circle  of  congenial  spirits  in  Geroldseck,  the  administrator  of  the 
Abbey,  Ochslin,  and  Zink,  the  papal  chaplain. 


50  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Romish  Church  of  his  day.  So  great  was  his  devotion  to  it, 
that  in  June  and  July,  1517,  he  copied  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
in  the  Greek  in  a  smaller  form  for  his  own  private  use,  for 
the  Erasmus'  edition  was  a  large,  heavy  folio  work.  This 
copy,  as  made  by  Zwingli,  was  called  a  "Paulinus,"  and  is  at 
present  in  the  City  Library  at  Zurich.  But  he  did  more  than 
copy  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  committed  whole  Epistles  to 
memory.  This  was  later  of  great  service  to  him  when  he  got 
into  public  disputations  with  the  Catholics.  For  he  literally 
annihilated  them  out  of  the  Word  of  God. 

As  we  here  leave  Erasmus  we  will  pause  a  moment  to 
point  out  his  later  influence  on  Zwingli.  Zwingli  got  from 
him  his  liberal  views  of  sin  and  guilt.  Also,  according  to 
Melancthon,  it  was  Erasmus  who  gave  him  the  first  suggestion 
of  the  figurative  interpretation  of  "is"  in  the  phrase :  "This  is 
my  body."  All  this  liberalized  his  views  over  against  the 
Catholics.  It  caused  Zwingli  and  his  Reformation  to  be  more 
rational  (but  not  rationalistic),  while  Luther  emphasized  the 
mystical  especially  in  the  sacraments.  Later  Zwingli  visited 
Erasmus  at  Basle  and  in  1522  he  invited  him  to  come  to 
Zurich.  But  Erasmus  became  estranged  from  Zwingli  because 
he  went  so  far  beyond  him  in  his  reforms. 

But  while  Erasmus  thus  influenced  Zwingli,  it  was  after 
all  Wyttenbach  who  gave  to  his  mind  the  mould  in  which  his 
Reformation  was  born.  The  recent  biographers  of  Zwingli  treat 
him  as  if  Erasmus  was  the  main  influence  that  led  him  toward 
the  Reformation.  They  forget  that  Wyttenbach's  influence 
was  first  and  was  the  more  powerful  (Zwingli  refers  to  it 
oftener.)  And  it  differed  from  Erasmus  in  being  a  more 
spiritual  influence.  They  have  forgotten  to  note  the  difiference 
between  Erasmus  the  critical  humanist  and  Wyttenbach  the 
spiritual,  religious  humanist.  For  the  two  seed-thoughts  that 
Wyttenbach  had  planted  in  his  mind  now  came  to  fruitage 
after  he  got  this  New  Testament,  namely,  the  supremacy  of 
the  Scriptures  and  the  completeness  of  Christ's  atonement. 
These  two  he  had  gotten  from  Wyttenbach  before  he  knew 
Erasmus.  And  besides,  he  went  farther  than  Erasmus.  Eras- 
mus had  been  willing  to  rouse  the  world  by  his  criticisms  of 
the  Church,  indeed  he  was  willing  to  critically  revise  the  text 
of  Scripture;  but  he  never  came  out  boldly  saying  that  the 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  51 

Bible  was  the  rule  of  faith.  He  emphasized  Scripture  over 
against  a  religion  of  outward  rites,  but  he  did  not  emphasize 
the  Scripture  over  against  the  Church  as  an  authority.  He 
was  too  much  of  a  time-server  for  that.  He  could  say  severe 
things  against  the  Church,  but  he  was  careful  never  to  attack 
her  constitution  or  her  authority.  Just  at  this  point  Zwingli 
got  his  inspiration  from  Wyttenbach  to  go  farther  than  Eras- 
mus. He  emphasized  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  the 
atonement  as  the  only  source  of  our  salvation.  Erasmus  sug- 
gested the  doubt  to  Zwingli  about  the  intercession  of  the  saints, 
but  he  never  went  farther,  as  did  Zwingli,  who  held  that  Christ 
is  our  only  intercessor  and  we  do  not  need  the  saints. 

It  is  very  interesting  to  note  how  these  seed-thoughts  of 
Wyttenbach  come  to  harvest  at  Einsedeln. 

The  first  was  the  supremacy  of  Scripture.  We  have  seen 
how  this  was  growing  in  him  as  it  did  in  Luther.  In  1523  he 
thus  speaks  of  himself  at  Einsedeln: 

"I  began  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ  in  the  year  15 16 
before  any  one  in  my  locality  had  so  much  as  heard  of  Luther. 
For  I  never  left  the  pulpit  without  taking  the  words  of  the 
gospel  in  the  mass  service  "of  the  day  and  expounding  them 
by  means  of  Scripture." 

He  thus  began  preaching  on  the  Gospel  as  found  in  the 
pericopes  or  Scripture  lessons: 

"  'Study  the  Scriptures,'  he  said,  'and  that  you  may  better 
understand  them,  study  Jerome.  However,  the  time  will  soon 
come,  with  God's  help,  when  Jerome  and  others  will  be  little 
esteemed  by  Christians,  but  only  the  Word  of  God.'  " 

Before  he  left  Einsedeln  he  wrote  to  Myconius  that  he 
expected  to  preach  on  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  verse  by  verse, 
as  he  later  did  at  Zurich. 

The  second  seed-thought  of  Wyttenbach  that  came  to  har- 
vest at  Einsedeln  was.  his  emphasis  on  the  One  Mediatorship 
of  Christ.  Erasmus  only  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  Christ  is 
love,  but  he  never  taught  his  completed  atonement.  As  Bullinger 
in  his  "History  of  the  Reformation"  puts  it : 

"He  preached  the  Gospel  with  all  diligence  at  Einsedeln 
and  taught  especially  that  Christ  was  the  only  Mediator  to 
be  prayed  to  and  worshipped  and  not  Mary  the  Virgin  and 


52  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Mother  of  Jesus.  This  was  by  many  unheard  because  un- 
pleasant, but  to  others  who  were  pious,  it  was  acceptable.  It 
is  indeed  a  providence  of  God  that  he  was  permitted  to  preach 
at  Einsedeln  where  everything  was  so  superstitious." 

He  seems  to  have  preached  Christ  and  his  forgiveness  at 
Einsedeln,  not  so  much  polemically  as  positively;  that  is,  he 
preached  the  salvation  of  Christ  in  its  fullness,  so  that  Mary 
and  the  saints  were  overshadowed  and  forgotten.  He  did  not 
preach  denunciations  but  the  positive  Gospel.  But  even  this 
must  have  required  tremendous  moral  courage  on  the  part 
of  Zwingli.  For  as  Bullinger  says,  there  was  not  a  more  super- 
stitious place  than  Einsedeln.  Yet  there  in  that  Abbey,  over 
whose  door,  according  to  tradition,  was  the  sign :  "Here  sins 
are  forgiven  by  the  Virgin  Mary,"  he  preached  that  sins  are 
forgiven  by  Christ.  And  in  that  abbey,  whose  greatest  prize 
is  the  image  of  the  Black  Virgin  said  to  have  fallen  from 
heaven  and  worshipped  today  by  hundreds  as  an  idol,  he  held 
up  Christ,  so  whi'e  in  his  righteousness,  over  against  the  black 
Virgin.  The  world  has  admired  Luther's  bravery  at  Witten- 
berg and  Worms,  but  it  has  forgotten  to  notice  that  here  at 
Einsedeln  there  was  also  bravery  and  heroism  as  Zwingli 
preached  the  new  Gospel  in  the  -cradle  of  the  old.  No  one 
would  dare  to  do  so  today  in  that  abbey.  As  a  result,  pil- 
grims, who  came  to  the  abbey  to  find  forgiveness  of  sin 
through  the  Virgin,  were  led  to  forgiveness  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

Of  his  preaching  there,  we  have  two  testimonies.  One 
is  by  Hedio,  who  in  a  letter  he  wrote  to  Zwingli,  NovemDer  5, 
1519,  speaks  of  Zwingli's  sermon  on  Pentecost  (1518)  at  Ein- 
sedeln, when  Zwingli  preached  on  the  story  of  the  paralytic 
(Luke  5:17-26)  : 

"I  was  greatly  charmed  by  a  discourse  of  yours,  so  elegant, 
learned  and  weighty,  fluent,  incisive  and  Evangelical,  wholly 
such  as  recalled  the  energy  of  the  old  theologians,  a  discourse 
on  the  passage  about  the  paralytic  in  Luke  5  at  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Virgin,  at  Einsedeln,  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  at  the 
Pentecost  season.  That  discourse,  I  say,  so  inflamed  me  that 
I  began  at  once  to  feel  a  deep  afi^ection  for  Zwingli,  to  look  up 
to  and  admire  him." 

The  other  is  by  the  Humanist,  Beatus  Rhenanus  of  Basle, 
who  wrote  December  6,  15 18: 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  53 

"I  know  well  that  you  and  your  companions  support  the 
pure  doctrine  of  Christ,  not  according  to  the  mutilation  of  the 
scholastics,  but  as  shown  in  its  truth  and  clearness  by  an 
Augustine,  an  Ambrose,  a  Cyprian  and  a  Jerome.  While  the 
others  bring  forward  their  babbling  about  the  power  of  the 
pope,  of  indulgences,  of  purgatory,  of  their  invented  miracles, 
of  vows  (of  monkhood)  or  of  hellish  punishments.  But  you 
bring  forth  in  your  sermons  the  leading  conterfts  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  as  if  it  were  painted  on  a  table,  how  Christ 
was  sent  by  God  to 'earth  to  teach  us  the  will  of  the  Father 
and  to  bring  it  about  that  the  world  with  its  riches,  its  honor, 
its  dominion  and  power  is  despised  and  the  heavenly  Father- 
land is  sought  with  a  whole  heart.  .  .  .  For  his  life  is  the 
doctrine  which  stands  out  more  prominently  than  anything  that 
belong  to  men." 

As  a  result  of  Zwingli's  emphasis  on  the  sole  mediatorship 
of  Christ,  two  other  correlated  doctrines  appear. 

The  first  was  his  opposition  to  indulgences.  Samson  came 
into  the  neighborhood  of  Einsedeln  preaching  indulgences  in 
the  summer  of  15 18.  Zwingli  denounced  them  and  so  suc- 
cessfully that  Samson  went  away.  Later,  Zwingli  did  the  same 
at  Zurich  early  in  1519  and  by  it  started  a  movement  that 
ultimately  drove  Samson  and  the  indulgence  business  out  of 
Switzerland.  Zwingli  says  later  (1523)  that  he  did  not  get 
his  opposition  to  indulgences  from  Luther  for  he  said  it  was: 

"A  subject  in  which  I  did  not  require  much  enlightenment 
(by  Luther)  becatise  I  had  been  already  taught  what  a  cheat 
and  delusion  indulgences  were  by  my  master  and  beloved 
faithful  teacher,  Dr.  Thomas  Wyttenbach." 

A  letter  has  come  down  to  us  froin  Beatus  Rhenanus, 
written  by  Zwingli  from  Basle,  December  6,  15 18.  Rhenanus 
says:  "I  have  laughed  a  great  deal  at  the  peddler  of  indul- 
gences whom  you  depicted  so  vividly  in  your  letter." 

This  remark  has  been  exaggerated  by  Zwingli's  later 
biographers  as  if  it  showed  that  Zwingli  did  not  take  the  mat- 
ter of  indulgences  seriously  but  merely  as  a  joke.  Thus  Jack- 
son says:  "He  had  no  appreciation  of  the  enormity  of  the 
conduct  of  the  pope  in  selling  them."  And  some  writers  not 
very  favorable  to  Zwingli  have  used  it  to  point  out  that  while 
Luther  realized  the  deadly  character  of  indulgences,  Zwingli 
just  joked  about  them.  But  we  ask  of  them :  If  Zwingli  took 
it  merely  as  a  joke  and  did  not  realize  their  enormity,  how 


54  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

was  it  that  Samson  was  driven  away  from  Einsedeln,  the 
very  place  in  all  Switzerland  where  he  would  have  been  apt 
to  find  support?  Mere  jokes  don't  produce  such  serious  re- 
sults. The  cause  they  give  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  the 
results.  And  one,  who  goes  to  Einsedeln  today  and  sees  its 
gross  superstitions,  will  realize  how  hard  it  must  have  been 
to  have  produced  such  a  result.  Yet  Zwingli  did  it  and  he 
could  not  have  done  it  by  mere  frivolity.  No,  he  himself  en- 
dorses Wyttenbach's  remarks  that  indulgences  were  a  fraud 
and  cheat  and  that  makes  them  more  than  a  joke. 

Again  this  letter  of  Hedio's  is  in  itself  an  answer  to  their 
inference.     He  says : 

"For  it  does  not  escape  me  that  you  and  those  like  you 
bring  forth  to  the  people  the  pure  philosophy  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
You,  in  preaching  to  your  congregation,  show  the  whole  doctrine 
of  Christ,  briefly  displayed  as  in  a  picture:  how  Christ  was  sent 
down  to  earth  by  God  to  teach  us  the  will  of  the  Father  to 
show  us  that  this  world,  i.  e.,  riches,  honor,  authority,  pleasure 
and  all  that  kind  of  thing,  are  to  be  condemned  so  that  the 
heavenly  country  can  be  sought  with  the  whole  heart,  to  teach 
us  peace  and  concord,  ...  to  take  away  from  us  foolish 
affections,  concerning  country,  parents,  relatives,  health  and 
other  possessions,  to  declare  that  poverty  and  disadvantages  in 
this  life  are  not  real  evils." 

All  this  does  not  intimate  the  inference  that  has  been 
drawn  from  it  that  Zwingli  was  merely  joking  about  indul- 
gences. But  it  shows  that  there  was  something  deeper  than 
jokes  in  his  preaching  on  it. 

We  have  thus  seen  how  Zwingli's  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Scriptures  and  the  atonement  led  to  the  denial  of  in- 
dulgences. There  was  also  a  second  doctrine  founded  on 
them  that  was  also  discussed  at  Einsedeln  by  Zwingli  and  his 
friends.  It  was  that  the  Church  must  be  reformed  and  that 
the  papacy  rested  on  a  poor  foundation.  Capito,  in  1536, 
in  a  letter  from  Strassburg  to  Builinger  thus  wrote : 

"Before  Luther  became  prominent  Zwingli  and  I  had 
come  to  an  agreement  that  the  pope  must  fall,  as  early  as  the 
time  he  lived  at  Einsedeln."  Zwingli  too  in  a  letter  (1525)  to 
Compar,  state  secretary  of  Uri,  says : 

"Eight  years  ago  (1517)  at  Einsedeln  and  then  at  Zurich, 
I  often  proved  to  the  Lord  Cardinal  of  Sion,  that  the  whole 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  55 

papacy  rested  on  a  false  foundation  and  this  always  by  appeal- 
ing to  Scripture.  The  noble  Sir  Diebold  of  Geroldseck  (the 
head  of  the  abbey),  Master  Francis  Zink  and  Doctor  Michael 
Sander,  all  three  yet  living,  are  my  witnesses;  and  the  above 
mentioned  cardinal  has  frequently  expressed  himself  to  me  in 
this  way,  'If  God  restores  me  again  to  favor  (he  was  at  that 
time  in  disgrace  with  the  pope),  I  will  then  willingly  see  the 
pride  and  falsehood  of  the  Romish  bishop  exposed  and 
corrected." 

Zwingli  said  to  Pucci,  the  papal  legate,  of  Switzerland : 

"I  will  openly  declare  and  before  men  still  living,  that  ere 
dissension  arose  in  the  Church,  I  have  both  by  word  and  deed 
witnessed  to  mighty  cardinals,  prelates  and  bishops  of  the 
errors  in  doctrine,  which  are  abroad,  and  warned  and  coun- 
selled them  to  remove  abuses  or  they  themselves  would  perish 
in  a  more  dreadful  revolution." 

Bullinger  also  says  that  at  Einsedeln  Zwingli  exhorted 
Hugo,  bishop  of  Constance,  to  give  freedom  to  preach  the 
pure  Word  of  God  and  to  remove  gross  abuses  and  supersti- 
tions. He  says  that  Zwingli  made  similar  remarks  to  Cardinal 
Schinner,  the  papal  legate  in  Switzerland.  Stahelin  has  tried 
to  throw  discredit  on  these  accounts  which  place  Zwingli's 
Reformation  so  early.  But  in  doing  so  he  has  to  discredit 
Bullinger's  testimony.  Our  reply  to  him  is  that  Bullinger's 
testimony  as  a  historian  can  not  be  discredited.  We  must 
confess  that  we  would  prefer  believing  the  testimony  of 
Bullinger,  a  cotemporary,  to  the  theories  of  biographers  and 
Church  historians  of  nearly  four  hundred  years  later.  Prof. 
Hagenbach  used  to  answer  such  critics  by  "Is  not  the  testi- 
mony of  Bullinger  sufficient."  Something  of  this  kind  must 
have  taken  place  or  why  did  the  pope  appoint  Zwingli  one 
of  his  acolyte  chaplains  September  i,  15 18.  Besides  Zwingli 
corroborates  Bullinger's  statements  in  his  letter  (1525)  to  Corn- 
par.  For  what  Zwingli  said  was  evidently  enough  to  cause  a 
stir  as  Rome  began  taking  measures  to  offset  it.  It  did  not 
do  so  by  fulminating  a  bull  against  him  as  it  did  against 
Luther.  It  did  not  dare  do  that,  for  the  pope  needed  too 
badly  the  Swiss  soldiers  in  his  armies.  While  he  tried  to 
crush  Luther  by  force,  he  tried  to  win  Zwingli  by  favors. 
Antonio  Pucci  used  his  influence  with  the  pope  and  on  Sep- 
tember I,  1518,  announced  to  Zwingli  that  the  pope,  in  recog- 


56  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

nition  of  his  ability  and  learning,  had  made  him  an  acolyte 
chaplain  and  released  him  from  some  acclesiastical  censures. 
This  bid  for  Zwingli's  favor  seems  later  to  have  been  followed 
by  other  overtures  of  much  higher  positions  in  the  Romish 
Church.  Zwingli  bears  witness  to  this  in  his  Exposition  of 
the  Articles  of  the  Disputation  on  January,  1523: 

"I  had  for  thr^e  years  previously  to  1520  been  preach- 
ing the  Gospel  with  earnestness,  on  which  account  I  received 
from  papal  cardinals,  priests  and  legates  with  whom  the  city 
abounded,  many  friendly  and  earnest  counsels  with  threats  and 
with  promises  of  greater  gifts  and  benefices." 

Myconius  says  he  asked  Zink  what  the  pope  had  offered 
to  Zwingli.  The  reply  was :  "Everything  except  the  papal 
chair."* 

We  therefore  believe  that  Zwingli  began  his  Reformation 
at  Einsedeln.  True  no  open  break  occurred  there  between 
him  and  the  pope.  Nor  did  there  for  that  matter  occur  with 
Luther  so  early  when  he  nailed  up  the  theses  in  1517.  But 
Zwingli  was  preaching  the  Protestant  doctrines  of  the  su- 
premacy of  Scripture  and  the  full  atonement  of  Christ.  He 
uses  a  significant  clause  in  his  letter  to  Juda  (December  17, 
1 5 18)  urging  him  to  become  his  successor  at  Einsedeln.  "The 
people  here  is  single-minded  and  willing  hears  Christ  preached 
to  them."  It  is  significant  that  at  this  great  pilgrimage  place 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  Zwingli  says  not  a  word  about  her.  But 
he  speaks  of  Christ. 

*  The  argument  of  Stahelin,  that  if  Zwingli  had  b^en  preaching 
the  Protestant  Gospel  at  Einsedeln,  he  never  could  have  been  elected 
at  Zurich,  because  Canon  Hoflfman  the  leader  of  the  Catholic  party 
would  have  opposed  him,  does  not  impress  us  deeply.  For  there  are 
too  many  things  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  First  of  all  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  lines  had  not  yet  been  drawn  at  that  time  between 
conservative  Catholics  and  the  humanists  like  Zwingli.  Second  and 
more  important,  so  many  of  the  higher  Church  officials  above  Canon 
Hoffman,  even  the  bishop  of  Constance,  were  favorable  to  humanism 
or  winked  at  it.  It  was  this  strong  influence  of  humanism  that  com- 
pelled Samson  to  leave  the  diocese.  And  thirdly  Stahelin  seems  to 
contradict  himself,  for  on  pages  128-9,  he  says  that  Hoffman  declared 
(1523)  that  in  his  thirty  years  of  preaching  he  had  often  attacked  the 
abuses  of  popes  and  bishops.  If  Hoffman  did  this,  it  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  he  would  object  to  the  election  of  Zwingli  even  if  the 
latter  had  already  preached  the  Evangelical  Gospel  at  Einsedeln. 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  57 

We  can  not  therefore  agree  with  some  of  the  biographers 
of  Zwingli  that  at  Einsedeln  Zwingli  was  yet  only  a  humanist. 
This  theory  is  based  mainly  on  a  theory  of  Usteri  who  made 
an  examination  of  Zwingli's  notes  in  the  books  that  belonged 
to  him.  He  claimed  that  Zwingli  changed  his  style  of  pen- 
manship in  1 5 19  and  that  relying  on  his  penmanship  his  earlier 
notes  were  only  humanistic  and  did  not  have  in  them  the  doc- 
trines of  grace.  And  Stahelin  has  followed  Usteri  here.  In- 
deed some  biographers  place  Zwingli's  beginning  of  the  Refor- 
mation as  late  as  1520  and  1521,  and  some  of  the  German 
Lutherans  as  Tschackert  place  it  as  late  as  1523.  The  Luther- 
ans have  seized  on  these  admissions  by  Usteri  and  Stahelin  to 
discredit  Zwingli  so  as  to  help  Luther.  The  Germans  have 
always  somewhat  looked  down  on  Zwingli  because  he  was  not 
a  German  and  only  a  Swiss.  Thus  the  case  against  Zwingli  has 
been  recently  prejudiced  by  German  Church  historians.  And 
their  Lutheran  bias  has  aided  this. 

The  trouble  with  the  opponents  of  Zwingli  is  that  when- 
ever it  is  asserted  that  Zwingli  said  he  began  the  Reforma- 
tion independently  of  Luther,  yes  before  him  in  15 16,  they 
declare  that  he  said  this  through  jealousy  of  Luther.  Even 
Jackson  echoes  this.  But  let  us  look  at  this  false  charge  for 
a  moment.  Zwingli  shows  his  entire  lack  of  jealousy  of 
Luther : 

1.  By  the  fact  that  when  Luther's  writings  first  appeared, 
he  highly  commended  that  they  be  read.  Thus  he  wrote  to 
Stumpf  at  Basle,  July  2,  1519:  "Have  the  copies  of  H.  Luther 
on  the  Lord's  Prayer  distributed  everywhere,  both  in  country 
and  city  among  the  unlearned  people  as  well  as  among  the 
priests."  Does  that  look  like  jealousy?  Other  quotations  of 
the  same  nature  could  be  given.*  Zwingli  also  had  the  publi- 
cation of  the  pope's  bann  against  Luther  stayed  for  four 
months  at  Zurich.  Does  that  look  like  jealousy?  Can't  a  man 
say  what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth,  as  Zwingli  did,  without 
being  charged  with  being  jealous? 

2.  The  same  kind  of  argument  might  be  used  against 
Luther  that,  because  he  spoke  against  Zwingli,  he  was  perforce 

*  See  Jackson,  "Huldreich  Zwingli,"  pages  139-143,  for  Zwingli's 
allusions  to  Luther. 


58  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

jealous  of  him,  which  is  not  true.  Then  neither  is  this  charge 
against  ZvvingU  true.  Zvvingli  did  later,  it  is  true,  have  a 
controversy  with  Luther  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  there  was 
no  jealousy  on  either  side  in  it.  It  was  with  each  a  question 
of  principle. 

3.  The  basis  of  their  argument  against  Zwingli  is  the 
theory  that  Zwingli  was  only  a  humanist  at  Einsedeln.  As 
to  this,  we  w^ould  call  attention  to  several  facts  in  Zwingli's 
life  which  can  not  be  explained  by  that  theory. 

(A)  How  does  it  come  that  Zwingli  was  preaching  the 
ransom  of  Christ  at  Einsedeln?  No  humanist  ever  did  that. 
Humanists  emphasized  the  Bible,  though  not  in  the  full  Prot- 
estant sense  as  the  supreme  guide  over  against  the  Romish 
Church  as  the  supreme  authority.  But  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
finished  work,  no  humanist  had  ever  gotten  up  to.  Erasmus 
had  emphasized  Christ  and  made  Christianity  consist  of  love. 
But  he  never  got  up  to  Christ's  complete  atonement  as  the 
only  ransom,  or  to  Christ's  sacrifice  as  all-sufificient  over  against 
the  intercession  of  saints  and  angels  as  Zwingli  did.  This  was 
an  entirely  new  doctrine,  that  "Christ  died  once  for  all"  (He- 
brews 10:10.)  Now  since  Zwingli  preached  this  doctrine,  as 
Bullinger  says  at  Einsedeln,  he  was  more  than  a  humanist — 
he  was  a  Protestant. 

2.  How  does  it  come  about,  if  he  were  only  a  humanist, 
that  Zwingli  when  he  first  came  to  Zurich  began  preaching  on 
the  Gospel  at  Matthew,  verse  by  verse?  No  humanist  would 
ever  have  undertaken  so  radical  a  change  as  to  set  aside  the 
time-honored  pericopes  or  Scripture-lessons  that  the  Catholic 
Church  had  used  for  hundreds  of  years.  The  Romish  service 
had  become  a  hard  and  fast  service  of  form.  To  deviate  from 
it  in  the  slightest  degree  was  regarded  as  heresy.  We  have 
seen  this  in  the  case  of  Lefevre  when  he  departed  from  the 
Romish  calendar  by  saying  there  were  three  Marys  instead 
of  one.  What  a  storm  it  brought  about  his  head.  ,Who  ever 
heard  of  a  humanist  doing  what  Zwingli  did  in  introducing 
such  an  innovation  into  the  mass  service  at  Zurich.  The  theory 
that  Zwingli  was  only  a  humanist  fails  to  account  for  this 
great  change  at  Zurich  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry 
there.  He  must  have  been  a  Biblicist  before  that  to  have  done 
it,  that  is,  when  he  was  at  Einsedeln.     Indeed  while  yet  at 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  59 

Einsedeln  he  said  he  would  begin  preaching  thus. 

But  not  only  does  the  theory  that  he  was  only  a  humanist 
fail  to  account  for  what  he  did,  but  there  are  three  sources 
which  may  throw  light  on  this  subject: 

1.  The  hand-writing  or  notes  in  his  books. 

2.  The  testimony  of  his  cotemporaries. 

3.  The  testimony  of  Zwingli  himself. 

I.  The  first  seems  to  us  the  least  conclusive.  For  hand- 
writing is  difficult  at  best  to  decipher.  The  theory  of  Usteri 
may  be  true,  but  it  is  at  best  only  a  theory  perhaps  to  be  set 
aside  later  by  another  theory.  And  even  if  it  be  true,  the 
argument  from  silence  is  always  a  sort  of  inconclusive.  For 
we  never  have  all  the  books  or  writings  or  letters  that  were 
written ;  especially  in  Zwingli's  case  is  this  true.  We  do  not 
know  what  Zwingli  would  have  said  if  we  had  more  of  them. 
.  We  must  therefore  conclude  that  of  the  three  reasons,  this 
is  the  least  conclusive.  And  yet  this  is  the  only  one  upon 
which  the  theory,  that  he  was  only  a  humanist  at  Einsedeln, 
rests.  Besides  if  it  be  true  it  must  be  harmonized  with  the 
other  proofs  given  below. 

But  the  other  two  kinds  of  proofs  are  much  more  im- 
portant and  sure.  The  second  proof  is  the  testimony  of  his 
cotemporaries.  Myconius,  Zwingli's  first  biographer,  places 
the  beginning  of  the  Swiss  reformation  at  Einsedeln.  He 
says  "Zwingli  went  to  Einsedeln  because  it  gave  him  such 
a  favorable  opportunity  to  preach  Christ  and  his  truth."  This, 
from  what  he  says  before,  refers  to  the  Evangelical  Gospel. 
Bullinger  says  "that  he  preached  the  gospel  with  all  diligence 
at  Einsedeln  and  especially  taught  that  Christ  is  the  only 
Mediator  and  that  men  should  not  pray  to  and  worship  Mary 
the  pure  Virgin  and  mother  of  God."  Capito  says  Zwingli 
and  I  had  an  understanding  that  the  pope  must  fall  even  as 
early  as  when  he  lived  at  Einsedeln.  Zwingli  says  in  his  letter 
to  Compar  (1523),  "Eight  years  ago  at  Einsedeln  I  showed  to 
the  Cardinal  of  Sion  and  later  often  with  clear  words  that 
the  whole  papacy  had  a  false  foundation  and  that  always  out 
of  the  Word  of  God."  The  Bern  Chronik  says  he  preached 
the  Gospel  for  three  years  at  Einsedeln.  He  must  have 
preached  it  before  15 19,  for  quite  significant  are  his  words  as 
given  by  Myconius.     "In   15 18  he  was  asked  by  one  of  the 


6o  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

canons  of  Zurich  whether  he  would  be  willing  to  preach  the 
Word  of  God  in  Zurich."  He  replied,  "Yes,  for  if  the  grace 
of  Christ  is  proclaimed  and  received  in  so  renowned  a  place, 
the  rest  of  Switzerland  will  soon  follow  the  example."  The 
universal  testimony  of  his  contemporaries  was  that  he  began  the 
Reformation  at  Einsedeln. 

3.  But  the  greatest  argument  is  the  testimony  of  Zwingli 
himself.  He  certainly  knew  when  he  began  it.  He  is  the  one 
who  most  of  all  ought  to  know  about  it.  He  universally  placed 
it  at  Einsedeln  and  not  at  Zurich.  Three  times  he  said  he  began 
it  at  Einsedeln.*  Jackson  is  right  when  he  says  that  Zwingli 
dated  his  arrival  at  Evangelicalism  while  he  was  at  Einsedeln.f 
Certainly  Zwingli  knew  better  than  German  Lutheran  his- 
torians or  theorists  like  Usteri  who  lived  nearly  four  hun- 
dred years  later. 

The  truth  is  that  those  who  make  Zwingli  only  a  humanist 
forget  to  note  a  peculiarity  in  his  conversion.  They  say  he 
was  first  a  humanist  and  then  a  Protestant.  But  they  forget 
to  note  a  peculiarity  in  his  convertion  to  which  we  have  called 
attention,  namely,  that  there  were  diflferent  kinds  of  humanists. 
Their  theory  might  be  true,  if  Zwingli  had  come  only  from 
Erasmus'  influence  to  Protestantism.  But  they  forget  that  he 
had  first  come  under  the  strong  Biblical,  Evangelical  influence 
of  Wyttenbach  before  he  had  come  under  mere  critical  human- 
ism under  Erasmus.  It  was  Wyttenbach's  influence  that  made 
him  a  Reformer  though  Erasmus  woke  that  up  in  him.  But 
as  we  have  seen,  he  quickly  went  beyond  Erasmus,  because 
he  had  had  Wyttenbach  before  as  his  teacher.  The  Biblical 
humanist  in  his  case  came  before  the  critical  humanist.  And 
that  made  him  a  Reformer  earlier  as  at  Einsedeln  than  mere 
critical  humanism  would  have  done. 

So  then  when  was  Zwingli  converted  and  when  did  he 
preach  the  Gospel?  He  mentions  two  dates,  15 16  and  15 17. 
In  his  Archeteles  (1522)$  he  says: 

♦Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler  and  Schulthess  edition  I  253,  III  117, 
VII  186.    We  shall  in  a  moment  give  these  references. 

t  We  are  surprised  that  Jackson  contradicts  himself  by  placing 
it  also  in  1520. 

t  English  Translation,  Vol.  I,  198,  Preface.    . 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  6i 

"But  now  for  about  six  years  (1516)  I  have  labored  to  the 
best  of  my  ability  with  the  talent  entrusted  to  my  keeping  that 
when  the  Lord  came  and  demanded  his  gain  I  might  not  sloth- 
fully  bring  forth  forward  with  fear  and  shame  the  one  idle 
talent." 

In  his  work  against  Luther  (1527)  he  says: 

"I  thank  my  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  contents  of  the 
Gospel  the  study  of  John  and  Augustine  and  above  all  the 
diligent  reading  of  Paul  for  my  knowledge  of  the  truth  and 
contents  of  the  Gospel.  This  of  Paul  I  copied  eleven  years 
ago  with  my  own  hands,  while  you,  Luther  have  only  begun 
to  domineer  since  eight  years  (15 19)." 

2.  Zwingli  in  his  letter  to  Haller  December  29,  1521, 
speaks  of  the  work  of  Evangelical  service  "which  I  began  five 
years  ago"  (1516).*  There  is  also  another  reference  to  15 16 
which  we  shall  give  in  a  moment. 

The  references  that  place  it  in  1517  are: 

I.  Zwingli  in  his  letter  to  Compar  (1525)  says: 

"I  have  often  shown  with  clear  words  to  the  Cardinal  of 
Zion  eight  years  ago  (15 17)  at  Einsedeln  and  later  at  Zurich 
that  the  whole  papacy  had  a  poor  foundation  and  I  did  it  al- 
ways by  the  power  of  the  Gospel." 

He  must  have  felt  that  that  year  caused  somewhat  of  a 
breach,  for  he  said  in  1520  :t 

"I  had  for  three  years  previously  been  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel with  earnestness, — on  the  other  hand  in  15 17  I  declined  to 
receive  the  pension  of  fifty  gulden, — I  must  confess  my  sin 
before  God  and  all  the  world  that  before  15 16  I  hung  mightly 
upon  the  pope." 

This  is  proved  by  the  statements  of  Myconius  and 
Bullinger.    Myconius  says  (English  Works  of  Zwingli,  7)  : 

"An  opportunity  was  offered  to  remove  to  Einsedeln,  which 
for  the  time  being  seemed  a  sensible  thing  to  do.  The  con- 
course of  men  from  almost  all  parts  of  mankind,  so  celebrated 
was  the  name  of  the  place,  attracted  him  as  it  give  such  a  favor- 
able opportunity  to  preach  Christ  and  his  truth  in  regions  varied 

*  Schuler  and  Schulthess  Edition  of  Zwingli's  Works,  Vol.  VII, 
186. 

t  Schuler  and  Schulthess  Edition  of  Zwingli's  Works,  I,  253. 


62  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

and  remote.    Nor  was  his  hope  disappointed,  for  Chirst  began 
to  be  known  more  soundly." 

Bullinger  says : 

"He  preached  the  Gospel  with  all  diligence  also  at  Einsedeln 
and  especially  taught  that  Christ  the  only  Mediator  and  not 
Mary  the  Virgin  and  Mother  of  God  should  be  prayed  to  and 
worshipped.  This  was  a  wonderful  providence  of  God,  that  it 
was  given  to  him  to  preach  thus  in  Einsedeln,  which  was  such  a 
superstitious  place." 

And  his  conversion  must  have  occurred  before  1518,  for 
Beatus  Rhenanus  in  15 18  speaks  of  Zwingli  as  one  of  "the 
teachers  of  Evangelical  truth  who  had  torn  the  mask  of  the 
scholastic  theology  oflF,  because  it  sought  to  bring  Christ  under 
the  rule  of  Aristotle." 

How  shall  we  harmonize  these  different  dates  given  by 
Zwingli?  Probably  the  best  way  to  harmonize  them  is  that 
he  began  preaching  on  the  Gospel  in  the  mass  service  in  15 16 
as  he  says  in  1523 : 

"I  began  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ  in  the  year  15 16 
before  any  one  in  my  locality  had  so  much  as  heard  the  name 
of  Luther :  for  I  never  left  the  pulpit  without  taking  the  words 
of  the  gospel  as  used  in  the  mass  service  of  the  day  and  ex- 
pounding them  by  means  of  the  Scriptures :  although  at  first 
I  relied  much  upon  the  Fathers  as  expositors  and  explainers." 

But  even  that  sort  of  Biblical  preaching  was  a  far  advance 
on  anything  they  had  had  before.  Then  we  can  place  the 
second  date  (1517)  as  the  time  when  he  began  to  publicly 
preach  the  Gospel  of  free  grace, — the  atonement  of  Christ  as 
the  source  of  forgiveness  and  as  the  time  when  he  began 
preaching  Christ  over  against  the  Virgin  as  Bullinger  says. 

There  is  however  one  other  date  which  is  mentioned  as 
the  day  when  he  preached  this  Gospel.  It  is  the  only  specific 
date  of  it  that  has  come  down  to  us.  Just  as  October  31,  15 17, 
has  come  down  as  the  date  of  Luther's  nailing  up  of  the  theses. 
So  has  Pentecost,  J518,  come  down  to  the  Reformed.  For 
then  Hedio  says  he  heard  him  preach  the  Gospel.  Zwingli 
then  took  for  his  text  "the  healing  of  the  paralytic  in  Luke  5, 
in  which  is  the  significant  verse :  'But  that  ye  may  know  that 
the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  to  forgive  sins.'  "  This  date  is,  it 
is  true,  about  six  months  later  than  Luther's  theses,  but  then 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  63 

as  we  shall  see,  Luther  was  then  not  yet  a  Protestant.  We 
are  inclined  to  place  the  beginning  of  Zwingli's  preaching  of 
the  new  doctrine  of  the  Reformation  near  the  close  of  15 17, 
about  the  time  that  Luther  nailed  up  his  theses. 

B — THE  CONVERSION  OF  LUTHER. 

The  conversion  of  Luther  was  according  to  tradition  sud- 
den. One  tradition  held  that  while  climbing  up  the  Sacred 
Stairs  at  Rome,  he  heard  the  voice  saying:  "The  just  shall 
live  by  faith."  But  this  view  has  been  given  up.  For  Luther 
clearly  showed  his  intense  Romanism  there :  because  he  says  he 
read  mass  ten  times  while  there,  and  he  even  wished  his  father 
and  mother  were  dead,  so  that  he  might  be  able  to  release 
them  from  purgatory  by  his  penitential  exercises.  Besides  this, 
his  works,  published  after  his  visit  to  Rome,  show  that  he  had 
not  come  to  justification  by  faith. 

But  later  researches  in  Luther's  life  have  led  to  the  belief 
that  his  conversion  was  not  sudden  but  gradual.  Thus  his 
early  Lectures  on  the  Psalms,  15 13-5,  have  come  to  light.  Also 
his  Lectures  on  Romans,  1515-6,  were  first  discovered  in  the 
Vatican  Library  at  Rome  and  then  in  the  library  at  Berlin. 
These  have  brought  new  revelations  about  his  belief  in  that 
early  period.  His  lectures  on  the  Psalms  show  that  he  is  be- 
ginning to  use  the  humanists  such  as  Lefevre  and  Reuchlin. 
After  lecturing  on  the  Psalms,  he  began  to  lecture  on  Romans. 
Here  he  at  first  follows  Lefevre  until  Erasmus'  New  Testa- 
ment came  into  his  hands.  These  early  works  of  Luther  reveal 
two  things  : 

1.  First  that  the  idea  of  justification  by  faith  began  to 
dawn  in  Luther's  mind  earlier  than  has  been  supposed.  But 
it  began  only  to  dawn  and  then  very  gradually  the  light  be- 
comes clearer. 

2.  They  reveal  that  he  did  not  come  to  the  full  grasp  of 
that  doctrine  until  later  than  has  been  supposed. 

We  will  quote  two  or  the  latest  authorities  about  Luther 
in  this  period.  One  is  Prof.  Boedmer  of  Marburg  Univer- 
sity who  says  :* 

"In  the  course  of  15 16  he  overcomes  his  monkish  views  of 

*  "Luther  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Research,"  page  84. 


64  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

humility  and  learns  that  humble  submission  to  the  will  of  God 
is  not  sufficient,  but  that  there  must  be  added  thereto  the  glad 
trust  in  his  mercy.  Not  until  the  turning  of  the  year  15 16-7 
does  he  dare  discard  his  pastoral  doubts  about  the  certainty 
of  salvation ;  and  his  monkish  aversion  to  the  thought  that  a 
pious  person  may  confidently  count  on  the  mercy  of  God 
without  seeming  to  infringe  on  humility.*  He  had  by  this  time 
(15 1 5)  begun  his  reformatory  criticism  of  conditions  of  the 
Church.  Only  one  thing  he  lacked,  the  clear  recognition  that 
the  faithful  Christian  not  only  dared  be  sure  of  his  salvation, 
but  that  he  must  be  certain  of  it." 

Prof.  Henry  Preserved  Smith,  the  author  of  "Luther's 
Life  and  Letters,"  says: 

"In  his  first  lectures  (1513-5)  he  no  longer  lays  the  whole 
emphasis  on  works  as  he  apparently  did  in  his  first  monastic 
years,  but  on  the  other  hand  he  has  not  yet  arrived  at  the 
sola  fides  (faith  alone)." 

But  while  Luther  thus  vacillated  between  justification  by 
faith  and  justification  by  works,  he  had  settled  one  point.  He 
had  discarded  the  Scholastic  theology  formulated  by  Aquinas 
and  founded  on  Aristotle  and  had  taken  up  Biblical  Theology. 
And  by  the  middle  of  15 17  he  had  succeeded  in  getting  Bibli- 
cal Theology  into  the  university  at  Wittenberg. 

Then  came  the  thunder-clap  in  his  theses  against  indul- 
gences October  31,  15 17.  For  this  brave  act  Luther  deserves 
great  credit.  But  while  he  was  thus  gradually  coming  toward 
the  light  on  justification  by  faith,  he  does  not  reveal  it  in 
these  theses.  This  is  granted  by  Lutheran  writers.  Thus  the 
Lutheran  editors  of  the  excellent  edition  of  Luther's  Works, 
now  being  published  in  English,  say  so  in  their  introduction 
to  their  translation  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses.     They  say : 

"The  word  faith  destined  to  become  the  watchword  of 
the  Reformation  does  not  occur  in  them,  the  validity  to  for- 
give sins,  especially  in  reserved  cases,  is  admitted  within 
limits  and  the  question  is  simply:  "What  is  virtue ?"t 

There  is  no  clearer  proof  of  this  than  Luther  himself  gives 
in  the  preface  of  the  edition  of  his  Works  in  1545,  when  he 
wrote : 

*  Page  103. 

t  Vol.  I,  page  15. 


.      WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  65 

"When  I  took  up  this  matter  against  indulgences,  I  was 
so  full  and  drunken,  yea  so  besotted  in  papal  doctrine,  that  out 
of  my  great  zeal,  I  would  gladly  have  been  ready  to  see  and 
help  that  murder  should  be  done  on  all  who  would  not  be 
obedient  and  subject  to  the  pope,  even  in  his  smallest  word."* 

And  in  1520  Luther  wrote:  "Some  two  years  ago  (1518) 
I  wrote  a  little  book  on  indulgences  which  I  now  deeply  regret 
having  published,  for  at  that  time  I  held  that  indulgences 
should  not  altogether  be  rejected,  seeing  that  they  were  ap- 
proved by  the  common  consent  of  men."  This  book,  pub- 
lished a  year  after  he  nailed  up  the  indulgence,  shows  that  he 
believed  in  indulgences  when  he  nailed  up  the  theses. 

For  Protestant  readers  of  these  theses  must  be  careful 
not  to  read  into  the  theses  their  Protestant  views ;  but  to  read 
them  as  a  Catholic  would  or  as  one  coming  out  of  Catholicism 
like  Luther  would.  We  must  disabuse  our  minds  of  our  Prot- 
estant standpoint  and  view  them  from  the  Catholic  stand- 
point from  which  Luther  came.  Thus,  take  for  instance  the 
first  of  these  theses :  "Our  Lord  and  Master  Jesus  Christ  when 
he  said  "Do  penance."  Now  Protestant  translations  have 
translated  "do  penance"  by  "repentance."  But  the  Protestant 
idea  of  repentance  is  not  at  all  the  idea  here.  It  is  the  Catholic 
idea  of  doing  penance.  And  this  "doing  something"  was  quite 
in  accord  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  justification  by  works; 
for  indulgences  were  based  on  that  doctrine.  "Luther,"  says 
Koestlin,  "up  to  15 17  saw  no  other  light  than  that  every  one 
should  confess  to  the  priest,  secure  absolution  and  the  inter- 
cession of  the  saints,  which  he  justified  against  Huss  and  in 
his  sermons  he  invoked  the  Virgin." 

What  Luther  was  attacking  in  these  theses  was : 

I.  The  abuses  of  the  indulgences.  He  protested  against 
the  scandals  of  the  traffic.  This  was  his  main  objection.  It 
was  especially  the  money  abuses  that  had  roused  Luther's  in- 
dignation. The  sale  of  indulgences  in  Germany  had  been 
farmed  out  by  the  pope  to  the  Fuggers,  the  great  bankers  at 
Augsburg,  and  to  the  Archbishop  at  Mayence  for  a  large  roy- 
alty given  to  them  for  the  sales.  As  we  would  say  now,  "the 
trusts  had  gotten  hold  of  the  business"  and  were  perverting 

*  English   Translation  of  Luther's   \\'orks,  page   10. 


66  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

it  to  their  own  ends. 

2.  What  he  especially  attacked  were  papal  abuses,*  those 
indulgences  that  came  from  the  pope  and  which  really  inter- 
fered with  the  indulgences  given  by  the  priests  in  their  par- 
ishes. The  sale  of  these  papal  indulgences  took  a  great  deal 
of  money  out  of  the  hands  of  the  German  priests  and  princes 
because  it  was  taken  to  Rome.  It  was  depleting  their  coffers. 
That  was  the  reason  why  some  of  them  opposed  the  sale  of 
indulgences.  It  was  an  important  reason  why  Luther  re- 
ceived so  much  support  from  the  German  princes.  Thus  Duke 
George  of  Saxony,  though  later  an  opponent  of  Luther,  on 
account  of  this,  was  greatly  pleased  at  Luther's  checking  the 
indulgence  traffic. 

Now  from  the  standpoint  of  Protestantism,  the  opposite 
of  indulgences  is  faith  and  not  the  papal  pardons,  which 
Luther  attacked  in  these  theses.  It  is  faith  over  against  justi- 
fication by  works,  upon  which  the  whole  system  of  indulgences 
is  built.  And  that  is  what  Luther  would  have  championed  had 
he  been  a  full  Protestant.  But  not  a  wond  about  faith  does 
he  interject  anywhere  in  the  theses.  On  the  contrary  he  says 
(71)  that  "He  who  speaks  against  the  truth  of  'apostolic  par- 
dons,' let  him  be  anathema  and  accursed." 

3.  A  third  thing  that  Luther  objected  to  in  indulgences 
was  that  the  power  of  indulgences  extended  into  purgatory. 
He  said  that  the  papal  power  was  only  temporal  and  did  not 
extend  to  purgatory, — indulgences  were  only  for  penalties  im- 
posed in  this  life.  Therefore  the  pope's  indulgences  could  not 
reach  there  as  Tetzel  had  declared  that 

"Soon  as  the  groschen  in  the  casket  rings 
The  troubled  soul  from  purgatory  springs." 

But  while  Luther  thus  protested  against  the  indulgences  aflfect- 
ing  purgatory,  the  theses  reveal  that  he  was  a  firm  believer 
in  purgatory. t  But  how,  according  to  our  Protestant  concep- 
tions, can  one  hold  to  justification  by  faith  and  yet  believe  in 
purgatory,  which  is  built  entirely  on  justification  by  works; 
for  purgatory  has  to  do  with  the  arrears  in  works  that  the  soul 
is  in  at  death. 

♦  Thus  theses  5,  6,  33,  34,  88,  45,  48,  49,  75,  76  show  this. 
t  Thus  theses  11,  16,  17,  22,  25,  29,  35,  82,  84. 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  REFORMER?  67 

All  honor  to  Luther  for  his  courage  in  nailing  up  the 
theses,  but  it  is  evident  that  he  was  not  a  Protestant  then 
and  had  not  clearly  come  out  to  justification  by  faith.  If  we 
can  believe  what  he  says  in  his  other  works  before  and  at 
that  time  he  was  oscillating  between  justification  by  works 
and  justification  by  faith ;  but  had  not  come  out  clearly  enough 
to  faith  to  boldly  attack  indulgences,  which  at  its  root  was  the 
denial  of  justification  by  works. 

It  is  an  interesting  psychological  problem  to  know  how 
Luther  could  thus  endorse  the  papal  system  of  indulgences 
founded  on  justification  by  works  and  yet  be  coming  out 
toward  justification  by  faith.  How  he  could  hold  them  to- 
gether at  the  same  time  seems  contradictory  to  the  Prot- 
estant. But  it  was  not  so  to  the  Catholic  mind.  It  can  hold 
to  contraries  at  the  same  time.  For  the  Catholic  faith  is 
often  a  religion  of  contradictions.  An  explanation  can  easily 
be  made  of  Luther's  case,  that  he  was  here  only  followed  his 
great  Church  Father  and  model,  Augustine.  Augustine  held 
to  two  contradictory  views  of  religion, — sacramentarianism 
and  Evangelicalism, — that  is,  he  held  on  the  one  hand  to  bap- 
tismal regeneration  and  on  the  other  to  election.  According 
to  the  former,  man's  act  (the  priest's  when  he  baptizes)  saves; 
according  to  the  latter,  God's  act  saves,  for  he  elects  us  out 
of  his  own  good  pleasure.  Such  compromises  were  common 
in  Catholicism.  This  is  shown  by  the  act  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  in  the  sixteenth  century  when  it  tried  to  decide  between 
justification  by  works  and  justification  by  faith.  It  straddled 
the  question  and  held  to  both.  A  Protestant  asks  how  can 
that  be  done.  Very  easily  said  the  Catholic  Fathers  of  Trent. 
That  council  taught  justification  by  faith  (or  as  it  calls  it,  by 
grace)  at  baptism,  and  by  works  after  baptism.  The  Romish 
Church  has  ever  been  a  Church  of  compromises.  Remember- 
ing these  things  we  can  the  more  easily  understand  Luther's 
frame  of  mind  at  that  time. 

Such  was  Luther  when  he  nailed  up  the  theses — in  a  state 
of  transition.  No,  it  was  not  until  15 18  that  Luther  came  out 
to  clearer  views  on  justification  by  faith.  In  the  spring  of 
1518  he  went  to  Heidelberg  to  attend  a  convention  of  his 
Augustinian  Order.  While  there  he  held  a  disputation  on  the 
subject  of  free-will.    From  this  it  is  evident  that  he  was  com- 


68  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

ing  more  clearly  toward  justification  by  faith.  For  the  slavery 
oi  the  will  which  he  debated  there  was  the  foundation  of  justi- 
fication. "But,"  as  Koestlin  says  (Theology  of  Luther  I,  285) 
"Luther  developed  his  views  of  justification  most  fully  in  his 
Sermons  'Of  the  Threefold  Righteousness'  and  'Of  the  Two- 
fold Righteousness.'  "  Those  pamphlets  appeared  after  the 
Disputation  at  Heidelberg,  which  was  held  in  the  spring  of 
15 18.  We  can  therefore  place  Luther's  full  declaration  of 
justification  by  faith  somewhere  in  the  summer  of  15 18. 

Having  thus  carefully  studied  the  conversion  of  both 
Zwingli  and  Luther,  we  are  now  ready  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion which  one  was  first,  Luther  or  Zwingli.  According  to  our 
first  definition  of  a  Reformer  he  became  such  when  he  had 
been  converted  and  began  preaching  Evangelical  doctrmes.  If 
that  be  the  criterion,  we  have  Zwingli  preaching  his  Protestant 
doctrine  of  Christ's  finished  work  as  Mediator  in  15 17,  prob- 
ably in  the  autumn  just  about  the  time  when  Luther  nailed 
his  theses  up  at  Wittenberg.  But  that  was  about  six  months 
or  more  before  Luther  came  out  clearly  and  decidedly  on  jus- 
tification by  faith  in  the  summer  of  15 18.  An  additional  proof 
of  Zwingli's  precedence  is  given  by  Hedio,  who  said  that  he 
heard  Zwingli  preach  an  Evangelical  sermon  on  the  text,  "But 
the  son  of  man  has  the  power  to  forgive  sin."  This  sermon 
was  preached  on  Pentecost,  15 18,  which  was  before  Luther 
published  these  sermons  on  justification  by  faith  to  which  we 
referred.  We  therefore  conclude  that  according  to  our  first 
definition  of  a  Reformer,  Zwingli  was  before  Luther,  because 
he  preached  Christ's  atonement  before  Luther  did  justification 
by  faith.  Besides  Zwingli  came  out  more  fully  than  Luther,  for 
the  atonement  is  the  basis  of  justification  by  faith.  There 
Zwingli  got  down  deeper  than  Luther,  even  to  the  root  of  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  whereas  Luther  emphasized  the  result 
in  justification.  But  both,  thank  God,  came  to  the  great  first 
principles  of  our  Protestant  faith. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HARMONY    OF    THE)    LUTHERAN    AND    REFORMED    REFORMATIONS. 

We  have  thus  far  followed  the  Reformation  up  to  the 
time  of  the  conversion  of  Luther  and  Zwingli.  We  propose 
to  continue  the  study  of  their  Reformation  by  placing  their 
work  at  Wittenberg  and  at  Zurich  side  by  side.  Harmonies  of 
the  four  Gospels  have  greatly  aided  us  in  understanding  the 
life  of  our  Lord,  why  not  harmonies  of  the  Reformation  to 
enable  us  to  understand  it  better.  As  far  as  our  knowledge 
goes,  no  such  harmony  has  ever  been  attempted.  We  will 
therefore  place  the  events  at  Zurich  and  Wittenberg  side  by 
side  as  they  take  place.  In  this  way  new  light  will  be  let  into 
the  subject.  And  we  will  be  better  able  to  study  the  progress 
of  the  Reformation  step  by  step. 

We  will  begin  with  the  year  15 19,  as  we  have  already  vir- 
tually covered  the  ground  up  to  that  time.  And  the  year  15 19 
is  a  good  year  to  begin  with ;  for  on  January  i  of  that  year 
Zwingli  began  his  work  at  Zurich.  And  Luther  also  began  his 
great  public  defenses  by  his  debate  at  the  Conference  at 
Leipsic,  15 19. 

Luther  had,  as  we  have  seen,  come  out  on  the  subject  of 
justification  by  faith  as  revealed  in  his  sermons  in  15 18.  He 
now  begins  to  advance  to  another  doctrine,  namely,  that  of 
the  Church  and  the  papacy.  In  a  letter  of  May  30,  15 18,  to 
the  pope,  he  declared,  that  he  still  recognized  the  voice  of 
the  pope  as  the  voice  of  God.  But  it  was  as  the  pope  began 
attacking  him,  that  he  was  led  to  greater  clearness  on  that 
doctrine.  His  first  appeal  (October  16,  1518)  is  from  a  pope 
badly  informed  to  a  pope  to  be  better  informed.  On  Novem- 
ber 28,  1 5 18,  he  appealed  from  the  pope  to  a  council.  This 
was  not  however  considered  heretical  in  those  days,  for  only 
six  months  before,  the  university  of  Paris,  which  had  ahva\  s 
represented  the  liberal  or  Gallican  Catholicism  as  by  Gerson 
at  the  Council  of  Constance,  appealed  from  the  pope's  decision 
to  a  council.     At  the  beginning  of  15 19  he  wrote  to  the  pope 


yo  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

that  the  authority  of  the  Church  was  superior  to  everything, 
save  Jesus  Christ. 

Then  came  the  Conference  at  Leipsic  in  the  summer  of 
15 19,  where  Eck  most  adroitly  produced  theses  about  the 
authority  of  the  pope  with  a  view  of  entanghng  Luther.  And 
when  in  the  discussion,  Luther  was  there  led  to  declare  that 
some  of  the  theses  about  Huss,  which  had  been  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Constance  in  14 15,  were  true,  Eck  charged 
him  with  "the  Hussite  poison."  That  was  where  Eck  wanted 
to  get  him.  He  at  once  denied  that,  in  saying  what  he  did,  he 
denied  the  authority  of  a  council.  But  he  was  soon  to  go  a 
step  farther  and  deny  both  popes  and  councils  as  the  final 
authority  and  rely  only  on  the  Bible.  Meanwhile  though  he 
was  thus  coming  out  from  under  papal  authority,  he  still  held 
to  other  papal  doctrines,  as  in  his  "Instruction"  in  certain 
articles,  he  declares  that  prayers  to  the  dead  and  purgatory 
were  allowable.  He  also  held  to  saint-worship  and  transub- 
stantiation.  As  late  as  1520  he  ended  his  sermon  with  an  Ave 
Maria.  Before  October  3,  Melancthon  had  however  published 
some  theses  against  transubstantiation  which  was  the  next 
Romish  doctrine  to  be  attacked. 

While  this  was  going  on  at  Wittenberg,  what  was  going 
on  at  Zurich?  There  we  notice  first  of  all  that  the  Reforma- 
tion was  proceeding  along  other  lines.  We  find  that  Zwingli 
was  doing,  what  Luther  had  not  yet  thought  of  doing,  namely, 
making  changes  in  the  cultus  or  worship  of  the  Church. 
Zwingli  did  not  go  any  farther  at  first  than  simply  to  lay 
aside  the  pericopes  and  preach  on  whole  books  of  the  Bible 
at  a  time.  But  even  that  was  a  great  step,  for  it  broke  the 
unchangeable  order  of  the  Catholic  Church  service.  For  no 
man  had  a  right  to  do  this  without  express  permission  from 
the  bishop.  By  this  step  he  uprooted  the  Catholic  custom  of 
centuries.  Had  he  done  as  he  had  been  doing  before  at  Ein- 
sedeln.  preach  upon  the  pericope  of  the  Sabbath,  it  would  not 
have  been  so  revolutionary.  But  no,  he  was  now  so  strongly 
imbued  with  the  authority  of  Scripture,  that  parts  of  the  Bible 
as  in  the  pericopes,  did  not  satisfy  him,  he  must  give  the  whole 
Bible  to  his  people.  And  so  he  preached  on  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  verse  by  verse.  His  preaching  began  to  produce  re- 
sults, for  he  could  by  the  end  of  the  year  write  to  Myconius 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  71 

that  more  than  2,000  citizens  of  Zurich,  one-third  of  the  popu- 
lation, sympathized  with  him;  Many  looked  upon  him  as  "the 
Moses  who  would  lead  the  people  out  of  slavery." 

Another  significant  event  was  his  attack  on  indulgences. 
Soon  after  he  came  to  Zurich,  Samson  came  there  selling  in- 
dulgences. But  so  strongly  did  Zwingli  oppose  him,  that  he 
left  not  only  Zurich  but  also  Switzerland.  When  the  plague 
broke  out  in  the  autumn  he  became  sick  unto  death,  indeed 
was  reported  dead.  But  he  recovered.  However  his  great 
illness  deepened  his  piety  and  prepared  him  for  the  great  work 
before  him  as  Reformer.  He  composed  a  hymn  in  his  illness.* 
Zwingli's  statements  in  his  letters  are  quite  interesting  as  they 
reveal  his  progress  in  reformatory  ideas.  On  March  9  he 
wrote  to  Beatus  Rhenanus :  "It  (an  oration)  will  please  you 
immensely  so  full  is  it  of  slurs  against  the  priests  and  silver- 
loving  cardinals."  On  March  21  he  wrote  to  him  again:  "It 
pained  me  that  the  man-pleaser,  or  if  you  prefer  the  cuckoo, 
is  entertaining  designs  against  the  rising  theology.  The  Lord 
will  not  save  Judah  when  he  trusts  in  his  chariots  and  horses ; 
but  only  when  trusting  in  his  mercy."  On  March  25  to 
Beatus  he  speaks  of  "the  'old  womanish'  business  of  Lent." 
And  on  June  7  he  speaks  against  the  adoration  of  saints  and 
on  December  31  he  writes  slightingly  of  relics. 

Zwingli  had  by  this  time  advanced  toward  Protestantism 
on  three  points.  Like  Luther  he  held  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  He  also  had  come  out  on  the  finished  atonement 
of  Christ  just  as  Luther  had  on  justification  by  faith.  He 
had  not  openly  attacked  the  pope,  for  he  had  not  been  attacked 
by  the  pope  as  had  been  Luther.  Still  he  had,  even  before 
Luther  begun  to  doubt  the  papacy  as  at  Einsedeln.  And  he 
had  come  out  against  saint-worship  to  which  Luther  held 
several  years  longer. 

1520. 

The  year  1520  was  a  great  one  for  Luther  and  the  Luth- 
eran Reformation;  for  in  it  Luther  published  his  two  great 
Reformation  treatises, — those  trumpet  voices  of  the  new  era. 
"The  Luther  of  1520,"  says   Boehmer,  Luther's  latest  biog- 

*  See  my  "Hymns  of  the  Reformed  Reformations." 


72  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

rapher,  "was  indeed  a  different  person  from  the  Luther  of 
the  Ninety-five  theses  (1517).  His  aims  were  grander,  his 
view  much  broader  and  clearer  and  his  self-confidence  vastly 
mightier."  Before  however  issuing  his  two  great  appeals  he, 
in  February,  got  hold  of  a  work  by  an  Italian,  Valla,  which 
showed  conclusively  that  the  "Donation  of  Constantine,"  on 
which  the  papacy  was  founded,  was  a  fiction  and  a  fraud. 
This  completed  his  denial  of  the  power  of  the  papacy.  In 
his  two  pamphlets,  Luther  advanced  to  several  new  positions 
He  had  first  attacked  indulgences  and  then  the  papacy.  Now 
he  attacked  the  priesthood  and  the  sacraments  and  other  errors 
of  the  papacy. 

His  first  book  was  his  "Appeal  to  the  German  Nobility," 
published  in  the  summer.  In  it  he  says  that  the  Romanists 
had  surrounded  themselves  with  three  walls.  The  first  was 
that  they  declare  the  spiritual  to  be  above  the  temporal ;  and 
therefore  the  secular  powers  have  no  control  over  the  clergy. 
The  second  was  that  the  pope  alone  could  expound  Scriptures, 
which  therefore  could  not  be  used  against  them.  The  third 
was  that  only  a  pope  could  call  a  council.  Luther  called  for  a 
trumpet,  which  like  those  which  threw  down  the  walls  of 
Jericho,  would  destroy  these  walls.  Over  against  the  first, 
he  declared  that  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  all 
believers  destroyed  any.  special  privileges  of  the  Catholic  priest- 
hood. Over  against  the  second,  he  claimed  that  the  Bible  gave 
to  each  Christian  the  right  of  private  judgment.  After  his 
destruction  of  the  first  two  walls,  the  third  was  easily  over- 
thrown. He  proved  that  the  early  councils  of  the  church  were 
called  not  by  popes  but  by  emperors ;  and  he  held  that  coun- 
cils should  not  be  fettered  by  the  pope.  In  this  work  he  also 
attacked  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  and  demanded  the  diminu- 
tion of  masses  for  the  dead.  He  appealed  to  the  German 
nobles  that  as  the  Romish  hierarchy  would  not  attempt  to 
bring  about  needed  reforms,  they  should  do  so,  which  right 
they  had  by  virtue  of  the  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  all 
believers.  "It  was  a  political  and  social  manifesto  (having 
however  a  religious  basis)  to  the  German  nobles  to  go  for- 
ward and  reform  Germany." 

This  trumpet  blast  was  shortly  followed  by  another,  "The 
Babylonish  Captivity,"  published  in  October.     In  this  he  at- 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  7z 

tacked  the  sacramental  system  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He 
mentioned  several  captivities.  The  first  was  the  withholding 
of  the  cup  from  the  laity  at  the  Lord's  Supper;  the  second 
was  transubstantiation ;  the  third  was  making  the  mass  a  sacri- 
fice. He  reduced  the  number  of  sacraments  from  seven  as 
among  the  Catholics  to  three,  baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
pennance,  though  he  grants  that  the  latter  was  not  a  full  sacra- 
ment. He  held  that  the  sacraments  were  seals  of  God's  for- 
giveness and  that  they  were  efficacious  through  faith.  In  his 
"Address  to  the  German  Nobility,"  he  had  dwelt  on  the 
external  abuses  in  the  state;  in  this  "Babylonish  Captivity," 
he  treated  of  the  internal  errors  of  the  Church. 

This  epochal  year  was  brought  to  a  close  and  a  climax 
by  a  most  heroic  act, — his  burning  of  the  pope's  bull  on  De- 
cember II.  He  defended  this  act  by  claiming  that  the  bull 
taught  the  pope's  absolute  authority  over  the  Bible,  the  Church 
and  the  Christian  conscience.  This  act  marked  his  formal 
breach  with  the  papacy,  for  he  burned  not  only  the  bull,  but 
also  the  canon  law,  in  which  were  the  Decretals  on  which  the 
papal  system  was  supposed  to  rest. 

But  while  Luther  went  so  far  in  breaking  with  the  pope, 
he  was  still  Catholic  in  many  of  his  customs.  He  was  still 
saying  the  canonical  prayers,  which  were  required  of  the 
priest  for  each  day.  For  he  says,  "he  missed  them  sometimes 
for  a  week  and  so  had  to  make  up  for  lost  time  by  saying  them 
all  together  for  a  whole  day,  so  that  he  had  no  time  to  eat  or 
"drink."  It  seems  strange  that  after  he  had  come  out  to  justi- 
fication by  faith,  he  should  still  continue  to  use  these  canonical 
prayers,  as  they  were  based  on  justification  by  works.  Was 
he  still  relying  on  good  works  to  save,  when  he  so  carefully 
goes  to  the  trouble  to  make  up  for  those  that  he  had  missed? 

Turning  from  the  Lutheran  to  the  Zwinglian  Reforniation, 
we  find  that  the  year  1520  was  a  comparatively  quiet  one.  com- 
pared with  Luther's.  And  yet  one  can  see  clearly  that  the 
Reformation  was  steadily  progressing  among  the  people. 
Early  in  the  year,  Zwingli  made  an  attack  on  the  tithing  sys- 
tem of  the  Catholic  Church.  This  was  a  serious  blow  to  the 
revenues  of  the  cathedral.  He  says  the  provost  of  the  cathe- 
dral declared  that  the  tithes  were  of  divine  right.  This  Zwin- 
gli controverted  publicly.     The  provost  pled  with  Zwingli  not 


74  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

to  furnish  any  more  arms  to  the  laity  to  use  against  the  clergy. 
Quite  significant  of  the  way  that  Zwingli's  preaching  was  tak- 
ing hold  of  the  people  was  the  action  of  the  city  council,  that 
the  Scriptures  should  be  preached, — "all  priests  and  curates 
should  freely  and  everywhere  preach  the  Holy  Gospels  and 
the  Epistles  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  and  they  should  only  teach 
what  they  could  prove  and  establish  by  the  Word  of  God. 
As  for  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  they  should 
let  them  alone."  This  was  the  first  action  of  a  secular  author- 
ity either  at  Wittenberg  or  Zurich,  favorable  to  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  Reformed  on  two  points,  it  will  be  noticed  as  we 
pass  along,  were  ahead  of  Luther's  Reformation,  in  cultus  and 
in  secular  action  favorable  to  the  Reformation. 

But  the  most  significant  event  of  the  year  at  Zurich  was 
Zwingli's  renunciation  of  his  papal  pension.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  last  chapter,  we  called  attention  to  the  different  defini- 
tions of  what  constituted  a  Reformer.  We  later  saw  how 
both  Luther  and  Zwingli  became  Reformers,  according  to  the 
first  definition,  namely,  when  they  began  giving  expression  to 
the  Evangelical  faith,  Zwingli  in  15 17  and  Luther  in  15 18; 
Luther,  to  justification  by  faith  and  Zwingli,  to  the  completed 
atonement  and  one  mediatorship  of  Christ.  We  saw  how  ac- 
cording to  that  definition  of  a  Reformer  Zwingli  was  first. 

We  now  come  to  the  second  definition  there  given  of  a 
Reformer,  namely,  that  he  was  one  who  renounced  publicly 
the  papal  yoke.  Well,  Zwingli  did  so  in  1520  as  he  renounced 
the  pension  he  had  received  from  the  pope.  This  was  a  pen- 
sion that  had  first  been  given  him  in  15 12-15 13  of  50  gulden 
($20)  yearly.  This  he  used  to  buy  books  and  it  was  greatly 
needed  for  he  was  poor.  In  15 17  he  declined  it,  but  they  kept 
on  sending  it  to  him.     He  says: 

"In  15 17  I  declined  to  receive  the  pension,  which  they 
gave  me  yearly  (yes,  they  wanted  to  make  it  100  gulden,  but 
I  would  not  hear  to  it).  But  they  would  not  stop  it  until  in 
1520,  I  renounced  it  in  writing.  (I  confess  here  my  sin 
before  God  and  all  the  world  that  before  15 16  I  hung  mightily 
on  the  pope  and  considered  it  becoming  for  me  to  receive 
money  from  the  papal  treasury.)  But  when  the  Roman  repre- 
sentative warned  me  not  to  preach  against  the  pope,  I  told 
hmi    m    express    and   clear   words   that   they   had   better   not 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  75 

believe  that  I  would,  on  account  of  their  money,  suppress  a 
syllable  of  truth." 

Zink,  the  chaplain  at  Einsedeln  with  Zwingli,  says  that 
Zwingli  was  never  moved  a  finger's  breadth  from  the  Gospel  by 
the  favor  of  pope,  emperor  or  noble;  but  always  proclaimed 
the  truth  and  preached  it  faithfully  among  the  people.    He  said  : 

"I  was  present  when  the  papal  legate  Pucci  was  frankly 
told  by  Zwingli  that  he  could  not  for  money  advance  the  papal 
interests,  but  would  preach  and  teach  the  truth  to  the  people  in 
the  way  that  seemed  best  to  him." 

From  all  this  it  looks  very  much  as  if  the  papal  pension 
was  forced  on  him  in  the  later  years,  very  much  as  literature 
that  we  do  not  want  is  forced  on  us  through  the  mails.  It 
is  also  very  clear  that  in  15 17  he  told  them  that  he  could  not 
be  bought  by  it  and  that  when  they  sent  it  to  him  after  that, 
they  did  it  on  their  own  responsibility.  The  whole  thing  was 
a  trick  to  injure  him  as  events  proved. 

This  was  Zwingli's  final  breach  with  the  pope.  It  is  an 
interesting  coincidence  that  Luther  and  Zwingli  both  threw 
off  the  papal  authority  publicly  in  the  same  year  (1520); 
Luther,  by  burning  the  pope's  bull  and  Zwingli,  by  giving  up 
the  pope's  pension.  But  if  it  be  asked  which  of  the  two  was 
the  earlier  in  doing  it,  we  again  reply  Zwingli ;  because  Luther 
did  not  burn  the  pope's  bull  till  very  late  in  the  year  (Decem- 
ber 11).  It  may  perhaps  be  answered  by  the  Lutherans  that 
Luther  was  attacking  the  pope  earlier  than  when  he  burned 
the  bull.  That  is  true,  but  Zwingli  earlier  than  Luther,  even 
while  at  Einsedeln,  had  spoken  against  the  papacy. 

1521. 

The  year  1520  had  been  the  great  year  of  Luther's  declar- 
ation of  independence  from  the  pope,  the  next  year  was  a 
»ear  of  great  confusion  at  Wittenberg.  Early  in  that  year 
(April)  Luther,  having  been  summoned  to  Worms  before  the 
German  Diet,  made  there  his  great  defense  in  which  he  refused 
to  recant,  closing  with  "Here  I  stand,  God  help  me.  Amen." 
This  heroic  act  was  followed  by  his  arrest  and  captivity  among 
friends  at  the  Wartburg,  where  he  spent  his  time  in  trans- 
lating the  New  Testament  and  later  in  the  year  in  writing 


76  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

a  pamphlet  against  the  monks. 

In  his  absence  matters  came  into  great  confusion  at  Wit- 
tenberg, as  Carlstadt  became  the  leader  there.  Now  Carlstadt 
has  been  too  severely  handled  by  the  Lutheran  Church  his- 
torians because  he  attacked  Luther  who  is  their  idol.  His  case 
has  been  prejudiced  against  him  by  them.  But  Carlstadt, 
although  he  had  his  faults  (as  we  all  have)  and  his  eccentrici- 
ties, is  yet  quite  significant  to  the  Reformed. 

Andrew  Bodenstein  of  Carlstadt,  or  Carlstadt,  as  he  has 
become  known  to  us,  was  a  professor  at  the  Wittenberg  uni- 
versity, senior  to  Luther.  He  was  a  man  of  considerable  abil- 
ity and  learning,  so  that  a  monk  once  called  Luther  "the 
greater  light"  at  Wittenberg  and  Carlstadt  the  "lesser  light" 
there.  At  first  he  had  opposed  Luther's  change  from  the  scho- 
lastic theology  to  the  Biblical ;  but  later  he  had  followed  him 
in  doing  the  same.  He  then  became  the  first  defender  of 
Luther  as  against  Eck,  which  led  on  to  the  Leipsic  Disputation 
in  the  summer  of  1519. 

In  1520,  he  had  had  a  controversy  with  Luther,  in  which 
he  took  what  was  really  the  Reformed  position  on  the  inspira- 
tion and  canonicity  of  the  Bible.  Luther  in  his  "Resolutions" 
had  given  expression  to  a  low  estimate  of  the  Epistle  of 
James,  because  it  seemed  to  him  that  James  favored  works 
rather  than  faith.  Carlstadt  took  exception  to  this  remark  of 
Luther's.  The  truth  was  that  Luther  in  doing  so,  held  to 
what  may  be  called  the  subjective  theory  of  the  canonicity  of 
the  books  of  the  Bible, — that  the  canonicity  of  the  different 
books  depended  on  whether  they  were  in  agreement  with  what 
seemed  to  him  to  be  the  truth  of  Christianity.  Carlstadt  de- 
nied this  and  declared  that  the  canonicity  of  a  book  depended 
on  the  decision  of  the  Church  and  not  on  the  whim  of  the 
individual.  This  view  of  Luther's,  if  carried  out  to  its  ex- 
treme, would  lay  open  the  way  for  the  baldest  rationalism  and 
highest  criticism  by  making  the  subjective  the  guide.  Carl- 
stadt inclined  to  what  was  the  later  Reformed  view,  espe- 
cially Calvin's,  who  minimized  the  subjective  authority  of 
canonicity  and  emphasized  the  objective.  Calvin  held  to  a 
doctrine  called  the  "Testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  this 
was  objective  canonicity.  For  it  held,  not  that  we  authenticated 
the  books,  but  that  they  authenticated  themselves  to  us, — were 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  -j^ 

self-authenticating,— they  spoke  to  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     It 
was  not  our  subjective  opinion  of  them,  as  Luther  virtually 
held,  that  settled  their  canonicity.     But  it  was  their  voice  to 
us  that  did  it.     On  this  point  Carlstadt  was  Reformed  rather 
than  Lutheran.     And  also  in  his  separation  of  the  Canonical 
books  from  the  apocrypha,  he  was  again  Reformed  and  not 
Lutheran.    This  controversy  however  passed  by  and  Carlstadt 
knew  no  difference  between  himself  and   Luther  until   1522. 
But  this  controversy  in  1520  was  only  a  prelude  to,  and 
prophecy  of,  the  greater  controversy  in  1521.     Carlstadt  had 
gone  to  Copenhagen  about  the  end  of  1520  to  aid  the  king  of 
Denmark  to  introduce  Protestantism  into  his  university.    When 
he  came  back  to  Wittenberg  in  the  summer,  he   found  that 
Luther  was  gone, — that  he  had  been  imprisoned  in  the  Wart- 
burg  and  that  the  Protestants  had  no  leader;  for  Melancthon 
lacked  the  qualities  of  leadership  as  he  was   yet  so  young. 
Carlstadt's    unquestioned    ability    gave    him    the    elements    of 
leadership   and   so  he   became   the  leader  at  Wittenberg  and 
introduced  a  number  of  reforms.     Some  Lutherans,  who  criti- 
cize him  for  what  he  did  there,  ascribe  it  to  jealousy  of  Luther. 
They  make  the  same  charge  against  Zwingli,  so  that  it  some- 
times looks  as  if  anybody  who  opposed  Luther  was  jealous 
of  him,  a  very   foolish   suggestion.     But  Carlstadt's  reforms 
were  on  the  one  hand  only  the  carrying  out  of  what  Luther 
had  been  preaching  at   Wittenberg.     On  the  other  hand,   in 
some  of  them,  Carlstadt  went  beyond  Luther.     What  makes 
him  especially  interesting  to  us  is  that  on  a  number  of  points 
he  was  Reformed ;  though  at  the  time  he  did  not  know  it. 
He  did  so  because  he  felt  that  what  he  did  was  Scriptural. 
When  he  arrived  at  Wittenberg,  he  found  that  a  number 
of  the  people,  as  the  result  of  Luther's  preaching,  demanded 
that  the  mass  should  be  celebrated  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  giving  the  cup  to  the  laity  and  also  that  the  monas- 
teries  should   be   abolished.      His   first   attack,   made   a   week 
after  his  arrival,  was  on  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.     He  then 
published  (June  21)  two  important  works  against  the  celibacy 
of  the  clergy.     Luther  had  granted  that  priests  could  marry, 
if  they  desired;  but  not  that  monks  could  do  so.    But  Carlstadt 
went  further  and  demanded  that  the  congregations  be  served 
by  only  married  priests.     Carlstadt's  attack  on  celibacy  was 


78  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

followed  by  his  attack  on  another  Catholic  error, — the  refusal 
of  the  communion  cup  to  the  laity.  Here  too  he  followed 
Luther,  who  as  we  have  seen,  had  demanded  it  as  in  the"Baby- 
lonish  Captivity."  But  he  went  beyond  Luther  in  declaring 
that  to  receive  the  communion  without  the  cup  was  a  sin. 
From  these  two,  the  celibacy  and  the  cup,  he  went  on  to  re- 
forms in  the  worship  that  Luther  had  not  yet  attempted.  And 
in  doing  so  he  became  Reformed,  though  he  knew  it  not.  On 
October  17  he  held  a  disputation  in  which  he  attacked  the 
elevation  of  the  host  at  the  mass  (this  was  really  artolotry  or 
idolatry  of  the  bread),  though  he  still  held  to  the  adoration 
of  the  host.  Then  he  went  further.  He  denied  the  necessity 
of  observing  Catholic  fasts.  He  also  attacked  the  use  of  pic- 
tures in  the  Churches.  This  too  was  a  peculiarity  of  the  Re- 
formed rather  than  the  Lutherans.  He  held  that  the  second 
commandment  prohibited  the  use  of  pictures  and  that  it  was 
as  binding  as  the  commandment  against  theft  or  adultery. 
Then  he  preached  against  the  mass  and  he  declared  that  if 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  compelled  him  to  hold  mass  on  New 
Year,  it  would  be  after  the  Protestant  fashion.  But  he  did 
not  wait  until  New  Year,  for  on  Christmas  (1521)  he  cele- 
brated the  mass,  changing  it  to  a  Protestant  ordinance.  In 
doing  so  he  made  the  following  changes : 

1.  He  omitted  reading  the  parts  of  the  mass  that  made 
it  a  sacrifice. 

2.  He  gave  the  cup  to  the  laity. 

3.  He  let  the  laity  take  the  bread  and  wine  into  their  own 
hands,  instead  of  himself  putting  them  to  their  lips  as  is  the 
Catholic  custom. 

4.  He  did  not  require  them  to  come  to  the  confessional 
before  they  came  to  the  communion.  Yes,  he  preached  against 
it  at  that  communion  service. 

5.  He  discarded  the  vestments  and  robes  of  the  clergy 
at  mass,  calling  them  idolatrous  and  used  the  ordinary  street 
dress. 

Of  these  changes,  the  last  three  were  specifically  Reformed 
and  not  Lutheran. 

The  controversy  over  these  innovations  caused  riots. 
Riots  began  on  October  i  when  Zwilling,  an  Augustinian  monk, 
began  preaching  against  the  mass.    On  December  3  the  priests. 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  79 

who  were  celebrating  mass  in  the  parish  church  were  stoned. 
About  one-third  of  the  monks  in  the  Augustinian  cloister  left 
that  monastery.  These  riots  were  dangerous  enough,  but 
there  came  another  influence  that  made  matters  more  danger- 
ous,— the  prophets  from  Zwickau  arrived  at  Wittenberg  in 
December.  They  claimed  to  have  visions  and  revelations  of 
God.  They  decried  education  so  that  the  students  began  to 
leave  the  university.  Carlstadt,  though  he  tried  to  temper  ex- 
cesses, was  somewhat  led  away  by  them.  Meanwhile  Luther 
at  the  Wartburg  had  become  alarmed  at  the  situation  at  Wit- 
tenberg. In  December  he  secretly  visited  that  town.  But  he 
found  the  situation  not  so  threatening  as  he  had  feared.  He 
laid  the  blame  of  the  riots  on  the  students  and  thought  that 
the  other  troubles  were  mere  temporary  excitements.  Thus 
the  year  1521  at  Wittenberg  closed  in  the  midst  of  storm 
and  change. 

Turning  now  to  Zurich,  we  find  that  the  year  1521  was 
a  year  of  quiet,  quite  in  contrast  to  Wittenberg.  And  yet 
the  reforms  already  begun,  were  continuing  their  quiet  prog- 
ress. Zwingli  speaks  of  preparing  sermons  against  the  wor- 
ship of  the  saints.  And  though  the  year  was  quiet,  yet  it 
was  a  lull  before  a  storm  which  broke  out  the  next  year. 
Just  at  the  close  of  the  year  Canon  Hofifman  of  the  cathedral 
at  Zurich,  leader  of  the  Catholic  party  there,  brought  com- 
plaint against  Zwingli's  preaching, — that  it  was  unprofitable 
and  unbecoming.  He  especially  attacked  Zwingli  for  attack- 
ing the  monks  from  the  pulpit.  This  Zwingli  had  done,  be- 
cause the  monks,  together  with  Hofifman,  had  been  his  prin- 
cipal opponents.  Hoffman  also  complained  of  his  preaching 
against  the  Virgin,  degrading  her  from  saintship  and  also  of 
his  attacks  on  the  legends  of  the  saints.  We  thus  see  that 
Zwingli,  just  as  he  had  done  before  at  Einsedeln,  preached 
against  saint  worship  and  now  added  to  that,  preaching  against 
the  monks  and  other  errors  of  Rome.  Luther  had  not  yet  got- 
ten that  far.  He  was  still  a  monk  and  he  held  on  to  saints 
and  saint-worship  a  year  or  two  longer.  Hoflfman  also 
charged  that  Zwingli  had  been  preaching  against  purgatory. 
the  authority  of  the  pope  and  fasting,  especially  in  Lent.  Zwin- 
gli had  long  broken  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ment and  preached  against  baptismal  regeneration.     All  this 


8o  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

led  to  friction  in  the  next  year  as  we  shall  see.  At  the  end 
of  the  year  the  ministers  there  took  an  action  that  was  the 
beginning  of  a  declaration  of  independence  against  the  bishop 
of  Constance,  for  the  ministers  of  the  canton  declared  that 
they  would  not  pay  their  dues  to  the  bishop.  And  the  council 
promised  to  withhold  it  so  long  as  the  bishop  did  not  tax  the 
upper  clergy.  And  so  the  year  closed  with  a  great  controversy 
at  Wittenberg  and  a  threatened  one  at  Zurich. 

1522. 

The  year  1522  opened  at  Wittenberg  with  storm.  The 
new  innovations  were  creating  friction.  On  St.  Stephen's  day, 
Carlstadt  had  a  marriage  ceremony  for  one  of  the  ministers 
and  also  betrothed  himself,  Melancthon  being  present.  On 
January  24  he  secured  the  adoption  by  the  city  of  Wittenberg 
of  a  Church  Order.  This  was  the  first  secular  action  taken 
there  on  religion  (two  years  later  than  at  Zurich,  as  we  have 
seen).  This  Church  Order  cast  pictures  out  of  the  Churches 
and  forbade  begging.  Carlstadt  had  denounced  pictures,  de- 
claring that  they  were  forbidden  by  the  second  command- 
ment and  that  their  place  was  in  the  fire  and  not  in  the  Church. 
So  the  Council  decided  to  have  the  images  removed  from 
the  parish  Church.  But  before  that  was  done,  some  of  the 
citizens  broke  into  the  Church,  tore  them  out.  hewed  them  to 
pieces  and  burned  them.  On  February  i  there  was  another  riot 
and  Carlstadt  was  forbidden  to  preach.  Luther  had  disap- 
proved of  Carlstadt's  demand  that  nuns  and  monks  leave  their 
convents.  But  he  had  supported  the  change  of  the  mass  to 
the  Protestant  Lord's  Supper.  He  even  approved  of  Carl- 
stadt's marriage.  But  by  the  end  of  February  he  wrote  a 
sharp  letter  to  the  people  of  Wittenberg  in  which  he  found 
fault  with  their  comjnilsion — that  they  forced  the  new  faith  on 
those  who  still  wanted  the  old.  At  the  same  time  he  con- 
gratulated the  Elector  on  his  remarkable  collection  of  relics 
at  Wittenberg  and  told  him  he  would  be  back  at  Wittenberg 
to  set  matters  right.  This  greatly  alarmed  the  Elector,  for 
he  feared  lest,  if  Luther  left  his  secret  asylum  at  the  Wart- 
burg,  the  emperor  would  seize  him  or  would  punish  him  (the 
Elector)  for  harboring  a  heretic.  But  Luther  came  neverthe- 
less.    He  appeared  in  Wittenberg  and  preached  March  9-16, 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  8i 

endeavoring  to  set  things  right  again  according  to  conserva- 
tive ideas.  Of  all  the  changes  made  by  Carlstadt,  Luther  re- 
tained only  one.  He  still  omitted  that  part  of  the  mass  which 
made  it  a  sacrifice  to  God. 

Now  in  all  these  changes,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Carlstadt,  though  he  did  not  know  it,  was  yet  making  changes 
that  were  Reformed  rather  than  Lutheran.  Thus  his  custom 
of  having  the  communicants  receive  the  elements  into  their 
own  hands  was  Reformed  and  not  Lutheran.  His  attack  on 
images  and  pictures  was  Reformed.  His  casting  aside  of 
vestments  at  communion  was  Reformed.  In  fact  it  is  very 
remarkable,  that  what  was  really  the  first  Reformed  Lord's 
Supper  was  not  celebrated  at  Zurich,  but  by  Carlstadt  at  Wit- 
tenberg four  years  before  Zwingli  was  able  to  introduce  it  at 
Zurich.  It  seems  strange  that  the  first  Reformed  Lord's 
Supper  should  take  place  in  the  cradle  of  Lutheranism  at 
Wittenberg. 

But  Luther's  restorations  were  so  remarkable  as  to  need 
special  notice.  When  he  returned  he  restored  all  the  old  Cath- 
olic customs  except  one  as  we  have  said.  He  restored  the  vest- 
ments and  robes  of  the  priests  as  the  Catholics  had  them.  He 
also  restored  their  fasts  and  the  use  of  the  confessional.  He 
rejected  the  new  custom  of  giving  the  elements  into  the  hands 
of  the  communicant  and  restored  the  former  Catholic  custom 
of  laying  them  on  the  lips  of  the  communicant.  He  retained 
pictures  and  images,  because  he  said  such  things  were  too 
trifling  to  make  a  fuss  about.  And  in  spite  of  what  he  had 
said  in  his  "Babylonish  Captivity"  about  giving  the  cup  to 
the  laity,  he  had  them  give  that  up  and  he  restored  the  Catholic 
rite  of  only  one  element.  It  is  true  that  at  a  side-altar,  an 
opportunity  was  given  for  those  who  desired  to  comnuuie  in 
both  kinds.  But  the  main  official  act  was  without  the  cup. 
He  thus  reintroduced  the  Catholic  mode  of  communing  and 
that  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  people  went  to  the 
side-altar  until  finally  the  communion  in  one  kind  disappeared 
there  a  few  years  later.  He  restored  the  elevation  of  the 
host  and  retained  the  adoration  of  the  host  until  1543,  only 
three  years  before  his  death.  And  in  spite  of  his  attack  on 
the  monks,  he  reassumed  the  monks'  habit  and  contimicd  wear- 
ing it  for  two  years  more.     Luther  also  reintroduced  the  use 


82  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

of  the  Latin  language  in  the  words  of  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.     This  was  contrary  to  the  Reformed  custom. 

Luther  did  all  this  for  two  reasons. 

First  he  claimed  that  cultus  was  secondary  to  doctrine 
and  therefore  he  placed  less  stress  on  it.  He  said  that  such 
things  as  the  marriage  of  priests,  cloister  life,  private  con- 
fession and  images  in  Churches  might  be  tolerated.  Only 
things  that  contradicted  the  Word  of  God  as  private  masses 
and  enforced  confession  were  to  be  abolished. 

Second  he  was  opposed  to  an  enforced  religion  on  any 
one.  The  new  faith  and  its  rites  were  not  to  be  forced  on 
the  people  but  must  be  accepted  voluntarily.  All  must  be 
done  in  an  orderly  way.  Paul,  he  said,  preached  at  Athens 
and  the  images  fell  though  he  never  touched  any  of  them. 

Now  while  we  would  show  all  honor  to  Luther  for  his 
courage  as  shown  in  many  ways,  we  are  the  more  surprised 
that  he  revealed  such  weakness  here.  The  Reformed  might 
have  been  slow  in  changing  Catholic  rites  before  the  times  were 
ready  for  a  change.  But  we  do  not  know  of  a  single  Re- 
formed who  ever  did  what  Luther  did  here, — restore  a  Romish 
rite  after  it  had  been  given  up,  especially  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  Reformed  would  never  have  done  this.  They  would 
not  have  done  it  because  they  believed  that  cultus  or  the  mode 
of  worship  was  as  important  as  doctrine;  while  to  Luther 
these  things  were  adiaphora  or  indifferent.  The  Reformed 
would  not  have  done  it  because  such  things  were  matters  of 
principle  with  them.  They  were  not  so  to  the  Lutherans.  The 
truth  is  the  Reformed  stuck  closer  to  the  Bible  than  Luther, 
for  they  would  have  in  the  worship  only  what  was  in  the  Bible. 

Carlstadt,  after  Luther's  return,  quietly  submitted  to 
Luther's  leadership.  But  the  next  year  he  went  to  Orlamunde 
near  Wittenberg  and  became  pastor  there.  There  he  intro- 
duced a  number  of  changes  in  the  worship  just  as  he  had  done 
at  Wittenberg;  and  in  so  doing  made  the  service  Reformed 
rather  than  Lutheran.  All  pictures,  crucifixes,  images  and 
altars,  together  with  vestments  and  robes  were  cast  out,  as 
was  also  the  use  of  the  Latin  language.  But  Carlstadt  was 
afterward  compelled  to  leave  Saxony  and  became  a  wanderer 
until  1534  when,  after  he  had  given  up  his  association  with 
the  sects,  he  was  made  a  Reformed  professor  of  theology  in 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  83 

the  university  of  Basle.    There  he  died  in  1541. 

Turning  now  from  Wittenberg  to  Zurich,  we  find  that  the 
year  1522  was  a  stormy  one  also.  Soon  after  it  opened,  a 
great  controversy  arose  about  fasting  in  Lent.  Zwingli  had 
been  preaching  against  fasting  especially  in  Lent  as  there  was 
no  Scripture  proof  for  it.  Canon  Hoffman  of  the  cathedral, 
as  we  saw  a  few  moments  ago,  had  brought  complaints 
against  Zwingli  in  the  previous  December.  Zwingli  before 
Lent  had  publicly  declared  that  Lent  had  no  support  in  the 
Bible.  He  himself  for  the  sake  of  prudence  did  not  disobey 
the  city  law  to  observe  Lent.  The  chief  offender  was  Christo- 
pher Froschouer,  the  great  printer  of  Zurich,  who  published 
Zwingli's  works.  (He  printed  so  many  Bibles  that  he  was  a 
whole  Bible  Society  in  himself.)  He  refused  to  fast  in  Lent 
and  made  a  plea  that  he  had  so  much  printing  to  do  before 
the  book  market  at  Frankford  that  it  was  necessary  for  him 
and  his  workmen  to  have  meat.  The  city  authorities  cited 
Froschouer  before  them.  Zwingli  then  defended  Froschouer's 
course  in  a  sermon,  which  he  later  published,  entitled  "Liberty 
Concerning  Food."  Froschouer  defended  himself  before  the 
council  out  of  Scripture  and  the  magistrates  did  not  punish 
him,  but  ordered  that  Lenten  fasts  should  be  continued.  The 
next  year  they  repealed  the  law  favoring  Lent. 

Zwingli,  having  begun  with  attacks  on  tithes  and  then 
on  fasting,  at  last  brought  down  on  his  head  the  wrath  of  his 
superiors  in  the  Church.  The  bishop  of  Constance,  in  whose 
diocese  Zurich  was,  now  began  an  investigation.  Hitherto 
these  upper  officials  had  either  been  lenient  toward  humanism, 
yes  some  of  them  favorable  to  it.  But  now  the  bishop  sent 
a  commission  adverse  to  Zwingli  to  Zurich.  They  first 
brought  the  matter  before  the  canons  of  the  cathedral  where 
Zwingli  so  ably  answered  them  that  they  left  the  hall  in 
confusion.  Then  they  appealed  to  the  smaller  council  in 
which  the  Catholics  had  the  majority.  This  council  refused 
to  give  Zwingli  a  hearing  on  the  matter.  Matters  looked  dark 
for  the  Reformed.  Zwingli  could  do  nothing  more.  His  only 
resource  was  to  God.  So  he  betook  himself  to  great  and  in- 
tense prayer  for  the  night.  And  lo !  when  the  great  council 
met  the  next  day,  it  out-voted  the  little  council  and  ordered 
him  to  be  present  and  reply.     When  the  head  of  the  bishop's 


84  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

commission  had  finished  his  address,  he,  with  the  rest  of  his 
party,  started  to  leave  before  Zwingh  began  speaking.  But 
the  Swiss  love  of  fair-play  led  the  council  to  compel  them 
to  stay  and  hear  Zwingli.  The  council  then  reaffirmed  its 
former  position  in  favor  of  fasting.  But  it  put  on  record 
an  action  unfavorable  to  the  Catholics, — that  the  divine  law 
was  higher  than  the  pope's.  The  bishop  was  dissatisfied  with 
this  for  he  sent  letters  to  Zurich  urging  that  heresy  might  be 
suppressed. 

Up  to  the  summer  of  1522  Zwingli  had  been  mainly  at- 
tacking Romish  doctrines,  now  he  began  attacking  the  Church 
regulations.  He  attacked  the  many  saints'  days  and  Catholic 
festivals.  On  June  19  he  attacked  Corpus  Christi.  He  also 
attacked  the  monks  and  the  mass  and  declared  that  the  pope 
was  only  a  temporal  prince  and  not  of  divine  appointment. 
Then  another  step  was  taken  favorable  to  Protestantism. 
This  time  it  was  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  that  was  attacked. 
In  July  two  petitions  were  sent,  one  to  the  bishop  of  Con- 
stance, the  other  to  the  Swiss  diet,  asking  that  the  clergy  be 
permitted  to  marry.  The  one  to  the  bishop  was  signed  by 
Zwingli  and  ten  other  priests. 

While  these  petitions  against  celibacy  were  being  sent, 
another  event  occurred  at  Zurich  that  created  an  excitement. 
A  prominent  friar  of  the  Franciscan  Order  arrived  there, 
Lambert  of  Avignon.  He  had  been  influenced  somewhat  by 
Luther's  writings,  but  was  not  yet  in  the  clear.  He  preached 
four  sermons  in  the  Fraumiinster  Church,  Zurich,  in  which 
he  defended  the  worship  of  Mary  and  the  saints.  Zwingli, 
who  was  present,  arose  and  called  out :  "Brother,  you  are  in 
error."  This  led  to  an  arrangement  for  a  disputation  between 
Lambert  and  Zwingli.  It  lasted  four  hours.  Zwingli  so 
pressed  him  out  of  the  Bible  that  at  last  Lambert  declared 
himself  discomfited  and  said  he  would  ever  after  pray  to  God 
alone  and  lay  aside  all  mediators  and  rosaries.  We  thus  see 
how  Zwingli  had  broken  on  saint-worship  with  the  Catholics 
even  before  Luther. 

In  August  Zwingli  published  his  reply  to  the  charges  made 
by  his  bishop  against  him  in  the  spring.  He  named  it  "Arche- 
teles."  which  means  "the  first  and  the  last,"  hoping  that  as  this 
was  his  first  attack  on  the  bishop,  it  might  be  his  last.     It 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  85' 

tatught  the  independence  of  the  Christian  from  Church  author- 
ity. It  revealed  how  thoroughly  Protestant  Zwingli  had  be- 
come. It  upheld  the  supremacy  of  the  Bible  and  forgiveness 
of  sins  through  the  atonement  of  Christ.  In  it,  he  declared 
against  the  confessional,  pictures  in  the  Churches,  the  use  of 
music,  vocal  and  instrumental,  in  the  Church  service.  He 
criticized  Luther  for  approving  of  the  confessional,  purgatory 
and  worship  of  the  saints.  On  these  points  he  was  clearly 
ahead  of  Luther. 

In  September,  Zwingli  preached  at  the  great  anniversary 
of  the  Angelic  Dedication  at  Einsedeln.  His  theme  was  a 
twofold  one,  the  supremacy  of  the  Bible  and  faith  in  Christ 
as  the  Mediator  instead  of  Mary.  Thus  the  Reformation  at 
Zurich  was  moving  fast  and  gathering  force  as  it  advanced. 
A  crisis  came  in  November.  Zwingli  decided  to  resign  as  he 
declared  he  could  no  longer  perform  the  duties  of  his  office. 
He  had  become  so  opposed  to  the  mass  and  other  Catholic  rites 
that  they  had  become  distasteful  to  him.  But  the  council  solved 
the  difficult  situation.  It  allowed  him  to  resign  and  chose  some 
one  else,  thus  relieving  him  from  his  distasteful  duties.  Then  so 
as  to  keep  him,  it  created  for  him  a  new  office,  that  of  preacher. 
This  act  was  very  significant.  It  was  in  reality  a  declaration 
of  independence  from  Rome,  for  it  was  the  appointment  of  a 
minister  by  a  secular  power,  without  asking  or  waiting  for 
the  bishop  to  sanction  it.  Just  at  the  close  of  the  year  came 
up  also  a  controversy  about  pictures  and  images,  to  which 
we  will  refer  in  connection  with  1523. 

1523- 

At  Wittenberg  very  little  of  importance  occurred.  There 
seemed  to  be  a  calm  after  the  storm  of  the  previous  year 
under  Carlstadt.  And  there  was  also  a  lull  before  the 
Peasants'  War  which  broke  out  the  next  year.  Luther,  to- 
gether with  Melancthon  and  others,  was  busy  on  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament.  This  was  finally  published  in 
1534,  being  preceded  by  the  Reformed  Bible  published  at 
Zurich  in  1530.  In  this  year  he  comes  out  against  saint- 
worship  by  approving  of  the  position  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren. 

If  we  turn  to  Zurich  we  find  that  it  was  quite  otherwise 
than  quiet.     This  was  the  great  year  of  the  Zurich  Refomia- 


86  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

tioii.  On  January  29  a  great  Conference  was  held  in  the  city. 
Zwingli,  just  as  Luther  had  done  in  1517  at  Wittenberg,  now 
nailed  up  67  theses.  In  them  he  attacked  the  whole  range  of 
Catholic  doctrines,  purgatory,  the  papacy,  mass,  intercession  of 
saints,  celibacy  of  clergy,  etc.  Faber,  the  vicar  general  of  the 
diocese,  was  present.  He  declared  that  such  matters  should 
not  come  before  such  a  conference  called  by  the  secular  power, 
but  before  a  council.  Zwingli  answered  that  the  Bible  was 
arbiter  enough.  Faber  was  pressed  by  Zwingli  to  produce 
proofs  from  Scripture  for  his  doctrine,  but  he  failed  to  do 
so.  So  the  council  took  action  that  Zwingli  should  continue 
to  preach  the  Gospel  as  long  and  as  often  as  he  wanted,  and 
that  all  priests  and  ministers  should  preach  nothing  but  what 
could  be  proved  out  of  the  Bible.  It  also  forbade  that  they 
should  call  each  other  heretics.  This  was  then  a  great  vic- 
tory for  the  Reformed,  for  it  closed  the  mouths  of  their  ene- 
mies against  their  calling  them  heretics  and  also  opened  their 
mouths  to  preach  the  Gospel  everywhere. 

The  pope  by  this  time  had  become  alarmed  at  the  prog- 
ress of  the  Protestant  movement  in  Switzerland.  He  sent  his 
nuncio  to  Zurich  with  a  friendly  letter  to  Zwingli  (January  23) 
to  win  him  back  to  the  Catholic  Church.  Myconius  says  that 
the  pope  urged  Zink,  the  papal  chaplain  at  Einsedeln  and  a 
very  close  friend  of  Zwingli's,  to  try  to  win  the  latter  back 
to  Catholicism.  Myconius  states  that  he  asked  Zink  what  in- 
ducements the  pope  offered  to  Zwingli.  Zink  replied :  "Every- 
thing but  the  papal  chair."  That  meant  that  Rome  would 
have  been  willing  to  have  given  Zwingli  anything,  even  made 
him  a  cardinal  in  order  to  silence  him.  But  he  refused  all 
such  bribes. 

On  August  10  occurred  the  first  baptism  in  German 
instead  of  Latin  in  the  cathedral.  On  September  2  Zwingli 
began  trying  to  make  changes  in  the  mass.  He  published  his 
Canon  of  the  Mass.*  In  it  he  enunciated  his  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  that  it  is  a  memorial  feast  where  the  thought 
of  Christ's  presence  stirs  us  to  greater  service.  He  also  pro- 
posed in  it  a  substitute  for  the  Latin  prayers  of  the  service. 

*The  canon  of  the  mass  was  that  part  of  the  mass  in  which  the 
words  of  institution  occur. 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  87 

Then  another  controversy  arose,  this  time  about  images. 
Leo  Juda,  the  new  pastor  of  the  St.  Peter's  Church  at  Zurich, 
preached  on  September  i  against  images  in  the  Churches. 
Zwingli  had  already  been  preaching  on  that  subject  at  the 
cathedral,  saying,  that  the  images  of  the  Virgin  and  the  saints 
were  idols  and  should  be  removed.  Bolder  spirits  caught  up 
these  teachings.  It  happened  that  just  then  Hetzer  published 
a  pamphlet,  "The  Judgment  of  God  Against  Images."  This 
led  Claus  Hottinger,  a  pious  shoemaker,  to  cut  down  the 
great  crucifix  at  Stadelhofen,  one  of  the  suburbs  of  Zurich. 
For  this  Hottinger  and  his  helpers  were  cast  into  prison. 
Zwingli  sympathized  with  them  though  he  thought  them  over- 
zealous.  As  a  result  of  this  controversy  the  council  ordered 
that  another  Conference  should  be  held  on  October  26  and 
that  the  subject  of  the  disputation  should  be  images  and  the 
mass.  On  the  first  day  the  subject  of  images  was  debated, 
on  the  last  two  days,  the  mass.  The  CathoHc  party  had  almost 
no  defenders.  The  council  decreed  that  images  should  be  re- 
moved wherever  it  could  be  done  without  disturbance  or 
wounding  tender  consciences. 

Finally  came  the  last  act  of  the  year  and  a  very  impor- 
tant one.  Zwingli  had  on  October  9  defended  himself  against 
the  charge  that  he  retained  the  Catholic  ceremonies  because 
he  liked  them.  This  he  denied.  Now  Zwingli,  Leo  Juda  and 
Engelhard,  the  three  pastors  at  Zurich,  delivered  an  opinion 
stating  that  they  were  ready  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper 
according  to  the  Protestant  fashion  and  also  to  have  daily 
Bible  readings  instead  of  the  mass.  But  the  city  council  post- 
poned this  revision  of  the  worship.  Thus  Zwingli  was  ready 
to  complete  his  Reformation  at  Zurich  as  early  as  the  end 
of  1523,  though  his  wishes  were  not  granted  until  more  than 
a  year  later.  And  yet  this  was  the  year  after  Luther  had  re- 
stored the  Catholic  rites  at  Wittenberg.  We  thus  see  how  the 
Reformed  were  leading  the  Lutherans  both  in  the  cultus  and 
in  the  civil  action  favoring  Protestantism  which  made  the 
Reformation  permanent. 

1524- 
During  the  year  1524,  very  little  was  occurring  at  Witten- 
berg.    For  they  were  kept  busy  by  the  Peasants'  War  which 


88  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

was  not  suppressed  until  the  next  year.  This  insurrection 
had  the  same  effect  on  Luther  that  the  Carlstadt  movement 
had,  it  made  him  more  conservative.  Against  the  Peasants  he 
pubHshed  his  tract  "Against  the  Heavenly  Prophets."  How- 
ever one  step  of  progress  was  taken.  The  German  was  intro- 
duced into  the  service  at  Wittenberg  and  the  mass  was  given 
up  in  the  castle  Church  there  though  it  remained  in  the  city 
Church. 

But  while  comparatively  little  was  being  done  at  Witten- 
berg, Zurich  was  going  forward  with  the  Reformation.  On 
January  19  the  Catholic  party,  led  by  Canon  Hoffman,  made 
their  last  attempt  to  stop  the  Reformation.  Hoffman  ap- 
peared before  the  council  and  was  asked  if  he  and  his  friends 
would  obey  the  orders  of  the  council  and  preach  according  to 
the  Bible.  He  refused  and  so  was  compelled  to  leave  the 
city.  This  broke  the  power  of  the  Catholic  party.  Now 
everything  was  becoming  Protestant.  The  saints'  days  were 
no  longer  observed.  The  council  permanently  abolished  the 
Whitmonday  procession  to  Einsedeln.  The  relics  were  taken 
out  of  the  Churches.  The  ringing  of  Church-bells  except  for 
Church  service  was  forbidden.  Payment  for  the  confessional 
and  for  masses  for  the  dead,  the  blessing  of  the  communion 
plate,  holy  water,  candles  and  extreme  unction  were  all  set 
aside.  Between  July  2-17  all  pictures,  images,  statues  and 
other  ornaments  were  quietly  taken  out  of  the  Churches  by 
the  authorities.  Only  the  statue  of  Charlemagne  in  the  tower 
of  the  cathedral  was  permitted  to  remain,  for  they  very  highly 
honored  him  because  he  had  given  the  ground  for  the  cathe- 
dral. Besides  they  got  over  the  difficulty  by  saying  that  Charle- 
magne was  not  a  saint,  which  was  probably  true.  This  ex- 
ample of  the  churches  in  the  city  was  followed  by  the  churches 
throughout  the  canton.  On  December  3  the  monasteries  and 
convents  were  abolished  at  Zurich.  So  that  by  the  close  of 
the  year  nothing  remained  of  the  old  worship  but  the  mass. 
And  it  would  have  been  abolished  the  year  before  if  Zwingli 
and  his  sympathizers  had  their  own  way. 

Perhaps  the  most  startling  announcement  of  the  year  was 
the  public  announcement  of  Zwingli's  marriage  on  April  2. 
He  had  married  in  1522,  but  had  kept  the  matter  secret  for 
prudential  reasons  lest  it  might  cripple  his  influence.     Only  a 


HARMONY  OF  THE  REFORMATIONS  89 

few  friends  as  Myconius  knew  of  it.  This  has  led  some, 
especially  Lutherans,  to  say  that  he  had  contracted  a  "clerical 
marriage"  with  her  in  1522.  Now  this  may  be  a  convenient 
name  to  call  it,  but  it  raises  more  difficulties  than  it  sets  aside. 
Such  a  concubinage  as  had  been  allowed  in  the  Catholic  Church 
can  not  be  harmonized  with  several  facts.  One  is  that  My- 
conius speaks  of  Zwingli's  wife  as  his  "wife"  three  times  in 
1522.  Again  how  could  Myconius  call  her  as  he  does  in  one 
of  his  letters  his  "Spouse  in  Christ,"  if  she  were  merely  a 
concubine.  Again  1522  was  the  year  when  houses  of  ill-fame 
were  cleaned  out  of  Zurich  at  Zwingli's  inspiration.  How 
could  that  have  been  done  if  he  were  living  in  such  concu- 
binage. In  a  word,  if  Zwingli  were  immoral  at  that  time, 
he  would  have  been  utterly  unable  to  have  carried  through 
his  reforms,  especially  as  he  had  so  many  Catholic  enemies 
right  around  him  to  watch  every  lapse  of  conduct.  Clerical 
marriages  might  have  been  possible  in  the  former  days  of 
Catholicism,  but  not  with  the  awakened  conscience  of  the  Prot- 
estant Reformation.  "If  he  erred,"  says  Simpson  in  his  "Life 
of  Zwingli,"  "the  error  was  one  of  judgment  rather  than  in- 
fringement of  moral  law.  With  our  imperfect  knowledge  of 
the  problems  and  conditions  involved,  it  behooves  us  to  be 
very  charitable  in  forming  an  opinion.  Zwingli  acted  from 
conscientious  motives  with  an  eye  to  the  interests  of  the  king- 
dom of  God."  Christofifel,  in  his  "Life  of  Zwingli,"  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  notwithstanding  his  enemies  were  circu- 
lating the  most  absurd  stories  to  vilify  him,  yet  his  marriage 
was  not  utilized  by  them  as  a  subject  for  reproach.  "In  it," 
says  Christoffel,  "I  not  only  find  no  censurable  weakness  but 
the  same  wise  and  temperate  regard  for  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  his  congregation." 

1525- 
During  this  year,  the  Reformation  at  Wittenberg  was 
almost  at  a  standstill  because  of  the  Peasants'  War.  But  at 
Zurich  the  year  was  marked  by  the  completion  of  the  Refor- 
mation. Zwingli  and  his  party  appeared  before  the  city  coun- 
cil on  April  11  (Tuesday  of  Passion  week)  and  asked  for  the 
abolition  of  the  mass  and  the  restoration  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
according  to  the  New  Testament.  The  council  ordered  it 
to  take  place  on  Thursday  of  Passion  week   (April   13).     It 


90 


THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 


was  a  very  simple  service.  Instead  of  the  altar  was  a  plain 
table,  instead  of  the  gold  paten  or  chalice  were  wooden  plates 
and  cups.  Both  of  the  elements,  the  wine  as  well  as  the  bread, 
were  given  to  the  people.  They  received  them  seated  instead 
of  kneeling  as  in  the  Catholic  Church.  There  was  no  singing, 
its  place  being  taken  by  the  responsive  reading  of  the  Creed  and 
the  Gloria  by  the  minister,  the  men  and  the  women.  All  the 
service  was  in  German  instead  -of  Latin.  This  completed  the 
introduction  of  Protestantism.  It  was  introduced,  not  in  one 
church  as  at  Wittenberg,  but  in  all  the  city  churches  and  in 
all  the  churches  of  the  canton.  This  was  not  done  in  Witten- 
berg until  1526-7. 

In  thus  completing  the  reformation,  Zwingli  was  before 
Luther  just  as  he  was  in  1517  and  1520.  For  Luther  did  not 
publish  his  German  mass  until  the  next  year,  1526.  And  when 
one  compared  Zwingli's  changes  in  the  worship,  they  are  much 
more  radical  than  Luther's.  For  the  Lutheran  service  at  that 
time  contained  elements  of  Romanism.  It  then  retained  the 
pericopes,  Te  Deum,  Benedictus,  adoration  of  the  host  and 
chalics,  also  gowns,  candles,  altars  and  fast  days.  Zwingli's  was 
more  completely  Protestant. 

We  thus  see  as  we  have  passed  along,  that  on  some  points 
the  one  Reformation  was  earlier,  on  some,  the  other.  The 
Lutheran  Reformation  at  first  created  greater  sensation  as  it 
spread  over  a  larger  country  as  Germany.  Had  it  been  per- 
mitted to  go  on  in  that  way  it  would  have  antedated  the  Re- 
formed. But  the  reaction,  caused  by  the  Carlstadt  episode  and 
the  Peasants'  War,  checked  the  progress  of  Lutheranism  for  a 
time  so  it  almost  stood  still  until  1526-7.  Meanwhile  the  Re- 
formed at  Zurich  had  gone  right  on  and  were  earlier  in  their 
reforms  than  Luther,  especially  in  worship  and  government. 
Thus  on  all  the  definitions  we  have  given  of  a  Reformer, 
Zwingli  preceded  Luther.  We  therefore  answer  the  question, 
Who  was  the  first  Reformer,  Luther  or  Zwingli,  by  having  thus 
proved  that  in  each  of  these  definitions  of  a  Reformer,  Zwingli 
preceded  Luther.  If  being  a  Reformer  meant  conversion  and 
preaching  of  Protestantism  Zwingli  was  earlier  than  Luther  in 
1517;  if  it  meant  breaking  with  the  pope,  Zwingli  was  earlier  in 
1520;  if  it  meant  changing  the  services  and  introducing  Prot- 
estantism into  the  city  and  country,  Zwingli  was  earlier  in  1525. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  ZWINGEl's  EARLY  THEOLOGY. 

The  theology  of  Zwingli  has  been  considered  by  a  num- 
ber of  writers  as  Baur,  Zeller  and  others.  With  most  of  them 
there  is  one  fundamental  fault,— the  authors  are  not  them- 
selves orthodox;  and  that  has  warped  their  judgment.  Baur 
and  Zeller  were  Hegelians  of  the  purest  water  and  had  little 
conception  of  what  was  orthodox  theology,  which  they 
spurned.  Some  of  Zwingli's  biographers,  not  being  orthodox, 
have  made  the  same  mistake.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
Zwingli  approached  the  Protestant  views  from  the  old  stand- 
point of  what  is  now  called  the  traditional  theology.  Unless 
that  is  kept  in  mind  (and  neither  Baur,  Zeller  or  the  others 
had  any  true  appreciation  of  it)  Zwingli's  true  position  can 
not  be  understood  as  we  shall  see.  Another  fault  to  be  found 
with  these  writers  is  that,  in  giving  Zwingli's  theological  views, 
they  dwell  upon  them  as  given  in  his  later  works  rather  than 
in  his  earlier.  The  gradual  growth  of  Zwingli's  views — his 
historical  development,  has  not  been  sufficiently  watched.  We 
will  find  by  examining  Zwingli's  standpoint  thus  that  it  will 
give  a  quite  different  perspective  to  his  life  and  a  truer  esti- 
mate of  him. 

The  first  statement  that  we  have  of  his  departure  from 
Romanism  is  during  his  first  pastorate  at  Glarus.  He  there 
declared  that  he  did  not  find  the  doctrine  of  the  intercession 
of  the  saints  in  the  Bible.  "Christ,"  he  says,  "is  the  only 
treasure  of  our  poor  souls.  Why  do  we  seek  help  in  the 
creature?"*  The  reason  why  he  began  to  doubt  this  doctrine 
we  have  already  adverted  to  in  the  previous  chapter.!  He 
got  the  suggestion  as  we  saw  there  from  Erasmus'  "Handbook 
of  the  Christian  Soldier."$     This  raised  a  doubt  in  his  mind 

*  Egli  "Schweizerische  Reformation-Geschichte,"  page  35. 

t  See  pages  47-48. 

tFor  extracts  from  that  book,  see  Emerton's  "Erasmus,"  paegs 

100-102. 


92  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

about  the  doctrine  of  the  invocation  of  the  saints.  But  in 
doubting  this  doctrine  he  struck  at  one  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  CathoHcism.  For  the  whole  Catholic  system  is 
built  upon  a  system  of  mediators  or  intercessors  between  God 
and  man  with  Mary  and  the  saints  at  the  top  and  the  bishops 
and  priests  at  the  bottom.  This  system  was  an  inheritance 
from  the  old  Arian  theory  of  aeons  in  the  fourth  century. 

Zwingli's  doubt  led  him  to  deny  the  invocation  of  the 
saints.  At  Einsedeln  he  preached  on  the  significant  text,  "The 
Son  of  Man  hath  power  to  forgive  sins."  Bullinger  in  his 
history  says,  as  we  have  seen,  "that  Zwingli  preached  the 
Gospel  with  all  diligence  at  Einsedeln  and  especially  taught 
that  Christ  is  the  only  Mediator  and  that  men  should  not  pray 
to  or  worship  the  pure  Virgin  and  Mother  of  God."  And 
Stahelin  grants  that  Zwingli's  experiences  at  Einsedeln  made 
him  attack  the  worship  of  the  saints  and  the  idleness  of  the 
monks.  Zwingli's  opposition  to  this  doctrine  appears  again  and 
again.  On  June  7,  15 19,  he  wrote  to  Rhenanus  that  he  would 
take  a  considerable  quantity  of  Luther's  works  on  the  "Lord's 
Prayer,"  especially  if  he  deals  somewhat  with  the  "adoration 
of  the  saints."  In  1521  he  speaks  of  preparing  for  the  press 
some  sermons  on  saint-worship  and  Haller,  the  Reformer  of 
Bern,  wrote  to  him  that  he  was  daily  expecting  to  read  Zwin- 
gli's sermon  on  the  worship  of  the  saints.  One  of  Canon  Hoff- 
man's complaints  against  him  was  that  he  preached  against 
saint- worship.  In  1522,  it  again  appears  prominently  in  his 
debate  with  Lambert  of  Avignon  which  he  thus  describes  in 
a  letter  to  Rhenanus  of  July  30,  1522: 

"You  know  that  a  certain  Fransciscan  from  France,  whose 
name  indeed  is  Franz,  was  here  not  many  days  since  and  had 
much  conversation  about  the  Scriptural  basis  of  the  saints  and 
their  intercession  for  us.  He  was  not  able  to  convince  me  by 
the  aid  of  a  single  passage  of  Scripture  that  the  saints  do 
pray  for  us  as  he  had  with  a  great  deal  of  assurance  boasted 
he  would  do." 

On  September  17,  1522,  he  pubHshed  a  sermon  on  the 
"Perpetual  Virginity  of  Mary"  in  which  he  held  to  her  virginity 
and  lauded  her  purity  and  faith,  but  he  denied  her  intercession. 
Myconius  says  that  when  he  debated  with  the  Commission  of 
the  bishop  of  Constance  in  1522,  this  was  one  of  the  doctrines 


ZWINGLI'S  EARLY  THEOLOGY       93 

that  he  attacked.  It  comes  out  very  prominently  at  the  First 
Conference  at  Zurich  in  January  29,  1523.  Among  his  67 
theses,  the  20th  says  "God  desires  to  give  us  all  things  in  his 
name,  whence  it  follows  that  outside  of  this  life,  we  need  no 
Mediator  except  himself."  And  in  the  discussion  that  came 
up  on  these  theses  there  occurred  an  interesting  episode.  The 
defense  on  the  Catholic  side  was  very  weak.  Faber.  the  vicar- 
general,  led  it.     Zwingli  said  : 

"Now  since  my  Lord  vicar  announces  and  publicly  boasts 
of  how  he  convinced  the  clergyman  of  Fislisbach  (Wyss)  by 
means  of  the  divine  Scriptures  of  the  fact  that  one  should  pray 
to  the  dear  saints  and  the  mother  of  God,  therefore  that  they 
are  our  mediators  with  God,  I  beg  him,  for  the  sake  of  God 
and  of  Christian  love,  to  show  me  the  place  and  the  location, 
also  the  words  of  Scripture  where  it  is  written,  that  one  should 
pray  to  the  saints  as  mediators ;  so  that  if  I  have  erred  and  err 
now,  I  may  be  better  instructed ;  since  there  are  here  present 
Bibles  in  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin  languages.  These  we 
will  have  examined,  so  that  we  may  see  whether  it  is  the 
meaning  of  Scripture  that  the  saints  are  to  be  prayed  to  as 
mediators." 

The  vicar  made  a  long-winded  reply  without  giving  any 
Scripture  passage  as  proof.  Zwingli  later  again  insisted  that 
he  give  the  passages  on  which  he  had  brought  back  the  priest 
of  Fislisbach  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  and  added  this  sharp 
passage : 

"For  if  such  a  custom  began  at  the  time  of  Gregory  then 
it  did  not  exist  before;  and  if  before  that  time  men  were 
Christians  and  were  saved,  though  they  did  not  hold  to  the 
intercession  of  the  saints  and  perhaps  knew  little  about  it,  then 
it  follows  that  they  did  not  sin,  who  believed  in  Christ  alone 
and  did  not  consider  the  intercession  of  the  saints.  For  we 
really  know  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  Christ  alone  is  the 
Mediator  between  us  and  God."' 

He  then  again  after  some  digression,  says  to  the  vicar: 

"I  desire  that  you  do  not  make  use  of  bombastic  speeches, 
which  do  not 'even  bear  upon  my  question,  but  as  I  have  asked 
before,  tell  at  once  where  is  written  in  Scripture  concerning 
the  holy  invocation  and  intercession  of  the  \'irgin  Mary  as 
you  pretended  you  could  show  from  Exodus.  Baruch.  Sec." 

But  the  vicar  again  turned  it  off  by  going  into  the  mar- 
riage   of    priests,    then    a   burning   question.      Again    Zwmgh 


94  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

asked  him  to  prove  from  Scripture  where  it  is  written  con- 
cerning the  invocation  and  intercession  of  saints.  Then, 
finally  the  vicar  quoted  the  text  in  Luke,  2nd  chapter,  where 
Elizabeth  says  to  Mary,  "Blessed  is  the  body  that  has  born 
thee  and  blessed  the  breasts  which  thou  has  sucked."  But 
Zwingli  quickly  interrupted,  "We  are  not  asking  concerning  the 
holiness  and  dignity  of  Mary,  but  concerning  her  invocation 
and  intercession."  Then  the  vicar  took  offense  at  the  inter- 
ruption and  helped  himself  out  by  sitting  down  and  refused 
to  say  any  more. 

We  thus  see  the  prominence  of  this  doctrine  at  that 
Conference. 

In  his  Exposition  of  his  Theses  published  July  14,  1523, 
this  doctrine  is  prominent.  After  this  First  Conference  in 
1523,  the  subject  came  up  again  as  iconoclasts  began  destroy- 
ing the  images  in  the  Churches.  This  led,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  the  Second  Conference  at  Zurich  in  October,  1523.  At  this 
Conference  the  subject  of  saint-worship  took  up  the  whole 
first  day.  Canon  Hoffman  tried  to  say  something  in  defense 
of  images  but  was  silenced  as  he  could  give  no  Scripture  proof. 
The  proposition  was  then  taken  up,  "The  images  are  for- 
bidden of  God  in  Scripture.  Therefore  they  should  not  be 
made  or  adored  among  Christians  and  they  ought  to  be  done 
away  with."  Leo  Juda  proved  this  proposition  ably  from 
Scripture.  Conrad  Smith  of  Kussnacht  tried  to  weakly  de- 
fend them,  that  the  images  were  staffs  and  supports  to  the 
weak.    Zwingli  arose  and  said : 

"God  forbid.  Had  useless  ministers  and  bishops  zealously 
preached  the  Word  of  God  instead  of  busying  themselves  with 
useless  trumpery  and  mummery,  it  had  not  come  to  this,  that 
the  poor  ignorant  people,  unacquainted  with  the  Word,  must 
learn  Christ  only  through  pictures  on  the  wall  or  wooden 
figures." 

We  thus  see  in  all  this  the  prominence  given  by  Zwingli 
to  this  doctrine. 

Before  leaving  this  doctrine,  it  ought  to  be  noted  that  it 
is  somewhat  remarkable  that  Zwingli  began  his  Protestantism 
at  so  superstitious  a  place  as  Einsedeln  which  was  erected  to 
the  worship  of  Mary.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  as  Zwingli 
began  his  Reformation  by  strong  opposition  to  saint-worship 
he  should  be  called  upon  to  end  his  life  with  it.     For  when 


ZWINGLI'S  EARLY  THEOLOGY  95 

lying  under  the  pear  tree  and  dying  on  the  battlefield  at  Cap- 
pel,  he  was  advised  by  the  Catholic  soldiers  who  gathered 
around  him,  that  if  he  could  not  speak  or  make  confession,  he 
should  pray  in  his  heart  to  the  Mother  of  God  and  call  upon 
the  saints.    But  Zwingli  shook  his  head  against  it. 

Now  while  this  doctrine  has  been  appearing  thus  early 
in  Zwingli's  life,  it  is  noticeable  that  alongside  of  it  another 
doctrine  has  been  becoming  prominent,  namely,  the  sole  Medi- 
atorship  of  Christ  between  God  and  us.  Bullinger  in  the  ex- 
tract we  have  given  says  he  preached  at  Einsedeln,  that  Christ 
is  the  only  Mediator.  It  is  really  the  other  side  of  the  same 
doctrine  of  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  namely,  that  they  ought 
not  to  be  prayed  to  since  Christ  is  the  only  Mediator.  Bullinger 
says  that  Zwingli  in  his  first  sermon  at  Zurich  "praised  God 
the  Father  and  taught  all  men  to  trust  in  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus 
Christ,  as  the  only  Savior."  Zwingli  later,  speaking  of  his  first 
preaching  at  Zurich,  after  describing  how  he  preached  first  on 
Matthew,  then  on  Acts,  Timothy,  then  on  Peter's  Epistles,  says 
he  went  to  Hebrews  : 

"In  order  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  people  the 
great  benefit  of  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  in  its  whole  extent. 
Here  they  were  to  learn  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  high  priest 
and  well  have  they  learned  it.  They  shall  also  learn  that 
Christ  as  an  ofTering,  once  made  for  all  coming  time,  has  alone 
justified  them." 

He  again  speaks  of  this  doctrine  in  a  letter  of  January 
4,  1520:  "Christ  died  once  for  our  sins  and  now  dies  no 
more."     (Romans  6:9.) 

In  the  67  theses  of  the  Zurich  Conference  (1523)  this 
doctrine  is  clearly  stated  in  theses  2,  3,  50  and  51  : 

50.  "God  alone  remits  sins  through  Jesus  Christ  his  son 
and  our  Lord." 

51.  "Whoever  only  assigns  this  to  creatures  detracts  from 
the  honor  of  God  and  gives  it  to  him  which  is  not  God :  this  is 
real  idolatry." 

2.  "The  sum  and  substance  of  the  Gospel  is  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  true  Son  of  God.  has  made  known  to  us  the 
will  of  his  heavenly  Father  and  has  with  his  innocence  re- 
leased us  from  death  and  reconciled  God." 

3.  "Hence  Christ  is  the  only  way  to  salvation  for  all  who 
ever  were,  are  and  will  be." 


96  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Again  in  1523  in  the  Canon  of  the  Mass,  he  again  speaks 
of  it  as  he  says:  "Christ  offered  once  for  all  for  us  as  the 
cause  of  forgiveness."  He  placed  this  against  the  idea  of 
making  the  mass  a  sacrifice.  In  1524,  in  a  defence  against 
the  rumors  that  he  had  received  his  knowledge  of  the  Bible 
from  a  Jew  who  lived  in  Winterthur  and  that  he  denied  the 
divinity  of  Christ  and  his  atoning  death  in  his  sermons,  he 
again  declares  that  "man  finds  the  sure  certainty  of  his  salva- 
tion in  the  death  of  the  living  Son  of  God." 

In  his  first  compendium  of  theology  his  "True  and  False 
Religion"  (1525)  he  devoted  considerable  space*  to  this  doc- 
trine. In  his  later  life  it  again  appears.  For  in  the  Confession 
which  he  sent  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany  at  Augsburg  (1530) 
he  says : 

"I  know  that  there  is  no  other  victim  for  expiating  crimes 
than  Christ,  for  not  even  was  Paul  crucified  for  us,  for  there 
is  no  other  name  under  the  sun  in  which  we  must  be  saved 
than  that  of  Christ.  For  this  is  the  one  sole  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  Christ  Jesus." 

And  in  his  last  theological  work  published  posthumously, 
"Explanation  of  the  Christian  Faith,"  he  says :  "For  the  con- 
firmation, satisfaction  and  atonement  of  our  sins  gained  with 
God  is  only  through  Jesus  Christ  who  has  suffered  for  us." 
Other  doctrines  came  in  as  he  grew  older,  to  broaden  his 
theological  system.  But  they  all  gathered  around  this  early 
doctrine  of  his,  the  one  mediatorship  of  Christ, — the  ransom 
for  sin, — Christ  died  once  for  all  ( Heb.  10:10). 

Where  did  Zwingli  get  this  fundamental  doctrine  ?  It  came 
to  him  first  as  we  have  already  seen  from  his  great  teacher. 
Prof.  Thomas  Wyttenbach.  of  Basle,  who  implanted  in  his 
mind  in  1506  the  great  spiritual  doctrine  that  "Christ  was  the 
ransom  for  sin."  He  says  :t  "the  death  of  Christ  was  the  sole 
price  of  remission  of  sins.  Therefore  faith  is  the  key  which 
unlocks  to  the  soul  the  treasury  of  such  remission."  "Absolu- 
tion," said  Wyttenbach,  "is  a  Romish  cheat,  the  death  of  Christ 
is  the  only  payment  for  sins." 

That  great  doctrine  of  the  atonement  became  the  sheet 

*  Zwingli  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pages  194-6. 
t  Opera  III,  544. 


ZWINGLI'S  EARLY  THEOLOGY       97 

anchor  for  Zwingli.  It  laid  hold  of  him  then  and  affected  him 
ever  afterward.  It  is  specially  prominent  in  his  earlier  think- 
ing before  he  broadened  out  into  whole  systems  of  theoIog>' 
as  in  his  "True  and  False  Religion,"  where  the  number  of  other 
doctrines  tends  comparatively  to  throw  this  one  more  into  the 
background.  It  was  the  belief  in  this  doctrine  that  prepared 
the  way  to  undermine  his  faith  at  Glarus  in  the  intercession  of 
saints.  "If  Christ  was  the  only  mediator  and  salvation,  what 
was  the  need  of  the  saints?"  That  was  the  logic  of  it.  But 
he  approached  it  Scripturally  and  ever  after  held  it  for  that 
reason.  He  could  not  find  saint-worship  in  Scripture,  that 
settled  the  matter  for  him.  As  he  meditated  on  it,  it  became 
more  and  more  clear  to  him  that  Christ  was  the  only  Mediator ; 
as  he  later  says  (indeed  the  phraseology  is  very  significant) 
"Christ  is  the  one  only  Mediator."  He  seems  to  have  gotten 
this  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  for  its  phraseology 
sticks  in  his  mind — Christ  died  one  for  all.  If  Luther  got  his 
Gospel  of  justification  from  Galatians  and  Romans,  Zwingli 
got  his  Gospel  of  atonement  from  Hebrews. 

It  was  the  same  Gospel  only  the  emphasis  was  different. 
Zwingli  went  down  deeper  than  Luther  to  the  basis  and  root 
of  justification  by  faith,  namely,  the  ransom  of  Christ.  All 
justification  is  based  on  the  atonement.  It  is  not  what  we  do, 
either  by  works,  or  by  faith  as  Luther  said,  but  it  was  what 
God  does  in  Christ  at  his  atonement,  that  saves  us.  Zwingli's 
views  were  therefore  more  definite  and  complete  that  Luther's. 
The  text  that  seems  to  have  most  impressed  him  was  Hebrews 
10:14.  He  referred  to  this  in  the  First  Zurich  Disputation  of 
1523,  where  he  repeatedly  quotes  Hebrews.  In  answer  to  the 
vicar,  he  says: 

"I  say  that  you  should  prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  the 
mass  is  a  sacrifice,  for  as  St.  Paul  says  (Heb.  8:  12.25.26) 
Christ  not  more  than  once  was  sacrificed  not  by  others'  blood, 
but  'by  his  own  blood  he  entered  once  into  the  holy  place, 
&c. ;'  nor  yet  that  he  should  offer  himself  often  as  the  high 
priests  in  the  Old  Testament  had  to  do  for  the  sin  of  the 
people,  for  then  Christ  must  have  often  suffered.  Likewise 
St.  Paul  writes,  (Heb.  10:  12.13)  'But  this  man  after  he  had 
offered  one  sacrifice  forever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
God  '  Likewise,  'for  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for- 
ever them  that  are  sanctified.'     Likewise,  'by  so  much  does 


98  THE  REFORMED  REFORiMATION 

this  sacrifice  surpass  the  sacrifices  in  the  Old  Testament  ful- 
filled bv  the  high  priest,  by  so  much  more  powerful  is  this 
declared  to  be  that  it  was  "sufficient  once  for  the  sins  of  all 
people."     (Heb.  7:22-27.) 

To  this  same  source  may  be  traced  his  early  opposition, 
which  appeared  at  Zurich  against  fasting.  He  had  been  preach- 
ing against  Lenten  fasts  because  not  in  the  Bible.  But  the 
theological  basis  for  it  was,  that  fasts  were  supposed  to  be 
good  works  which  saved  us.  And  Zwingli  was  jealous  for  his 
master.  "Christ  saves  and  saves  alone"  was  the  keynote  of  his 
early  preaching. 

Again  this  emphasis  on  Christ  as  the  great  Mediator  placed 
him  in  a  peculiar  position  while  he  was  at  Einsedeln.  For 
there  in  the  abbey  was  the  Black  Virgin, — there  it  was  held 
that  sins  are  forgiven  by  the  Virgin,  in  whose  honor  the  abbey 
had  been  built  and  who  had  consecrated  it  miraculously.  But 
in  spite  of  all  that,  Zwingli  preached  that  sins  were  forgiven 
by  the  death  of  Christ  and  not  by  the  Virgin  Mary.  No  wonder 
his  preaching  created  a  sensation  so  that  tradition  has  it  that 
those  who  went  away  told  those  whom  they  met  coming  to  the 
abbey  the  new  gospel.  And  they  turned  away  home  and  did 
not  go  to  Einsedeln.  Now  it  must  have  required  a  tremendous 
moral  heroism  to  have  preached,  right  at  the  shrine  of  Mary 
at  Einsedeln,  this  Gospel  of  the  forgiving  Christ.  It  was  like 
Paul  defying  Diana  right  at  Ephesus  and  Daniel  worshipping 
God  in  the  face  of  the  king's  idolatrous  edict.  But  Zwingli 
had  the  courage  of  a  hero.  He  knew  he  was  right.  For  he 
knew  he  was  preaching  the  Bible.  His  clear  humanistic  mind 
had  laid  hold  very  clearly  and  strongly  on  the  death  of  Christ. 

This  emphasis  on  the  death  of  Christ  explains  his 
emphasis  on  another  doctrine,  which  Zwingli  made  so 
prominent,  namely  the  Memorial  View  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
As  he  began  his  theological  Protestantism  by  so  emphasiz- 
ing the  death  of  Christ,  he  naturally  fell  into  the  view 
that  makes  the  Lord's  Supper  a  memorial  of  Christ's  death. 
For  the  Lord's  Supper  is  complex  in  its  significance.  Now 
we  have  one  element  made  prominent  and  now  another 
by  different  Reformers  and  dififerent  Churches.  Luther, 
especially  after  1524,  emphasized  the  relation  of  the  communi- 
cant to  Christ's  body  in  the  sacrament.     Calvin,  on  the  other 


ZWINGLFS  EARLY  THEOLOGY       99 

hand,  emphasized  the  relation  of  the  communicant  to  the  liz'iiuj 
Christ, — the  idea  of  communion  by  faith  with  God  and  with 
Christ  in  heaven  through  the  Holy  Ghost.  Zwingli  em- 
phasized the  relation  of  the  communicant  to  the  death  of 
Christ, — the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  memorial  of  his  death. 
And  who  will  deny  the  truth  of  this  when  Christ  says : 
"This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  In  his  67  theses  at  Zurich 
he  says :  "Christ  having  sacrificed  himself  once,  is  to 
eternity  a  certain  and  valid  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  all  the 
faithful.  It,  therefore,  follows  that  the  mass  is  not  a 
sacrifice." 

Zwingli  later  broadened  the  scope  of  his  theological 
system  and  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  does  not  occupy 
proportionably  so  prominent  a  place.  But  it  is  there  either 
clearly  stated  or  understood.  One  feels  it  pulsing  under 
all  the  other  doctrines — Christ  died  once  for  all.  In  his 
larger  work,  published  1525,  his  "True  and  False  Religion" 
other  doctrines  come  in  to  complete  the  system.  Perhaps 
the  change  that  took  place  is  best  given  in  his  Confession 
to  the  Emperor  of  Germany  (1530),  where,  after  speaking 
of  Christ  as  the  sole  Mediator  between  God  and  man  he 
adds  "Moreover  God's  election  is  manifest  and  remains 
firm :  for  whom  he  has  elected  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  he  has  so  elected  as  through  his  Son  to  receive 
Him  unto  Himself."  Thus  the  atonement  passes  into  elec- 
tion, which  doctrine  was  further  emphasized  in  his  tract  on 
"Providence."  But  in  his  last  work  "The  Explanation  of 
Faith,"  he  returned  to  the  atonement  and  the  sole  Mediator- 
ship  of  Christ  appears  again. 

We  have  thus  dwelt  on  the  early  theological  develop- 
ment of  Zwingli,  which  made  Christ's  death  fundamental. 
Our  reason  for  doing  so  is  that  the  later  biographers  of 
Zwingli,  like  the  writers  on  his  theology,  have  not  been 
fully  Evangelical.  Stahelin  is  undoubtedly  the  best  as  he 
is  the  latest  biographer  of  Zwingli,  though  he  cannot  be 
followed  in  all  respects.  But  Stahelin  would  not  be  con- 
sidered orthodox  by  us  in  America.  Pie  occupied  the  posi- 
tion of  a  Mediate  in  theology.  He  did  not  believe  in  the 
complete  vicarious  atonement  of  Christ  in  the  .sense  that 
the    Bible    <^ives    it,    namely    that    it    was    substitutionary.— 


100  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Christ  took  our  place.  The  result  is  that  he  does  not  do 
justice  to  Zwingli  on  these  points.  The  earlier  biographers 
as  Christoffel  and  others  are  better  here.  What  is  said  of 
Stahelin  is  truer  yet  of  the  later  Church  historians  who 
have  taken  up  Zwingli's  life.  The  recent  attempt  of  the 
Ritschlian  School  on  Germany,  among  them  Harnack,  has 
been  to  make  Zwingli  entirely  dependent  on  Luther.  And 
recent  American  biographies  have  simply  echoed  the  Ger- 
mans. But  the  Ritschlians  fail  to  understand  Zwingli,  be- 
cause they  themselves  are  not  Evangelical  and  cannot  study 
him  from  his  own  standpoint.  For  they  deny  the  absolute 
deity  of  Jesus  and  also  as  a  result,  his  substitutionary  atone- 
ment. For  if  Christ  be  not  a  God,  he  cannot  make  so  great 
an  atonement  as  was  required.  Therefore  these  writers, 
in  summing  up  Zwingli's  theological  views,  pass  by 
Zwingli's  doctrine  of  the  ransom  of  Christ.  It  does  not 
appeal  to  them.  It  has  no  place  in  their  theology  and  so 
they  do  not  see  it  in  his.  We,  therefore,  call  attention  to 
what  the  earlier  Evangelical  biographies  of  Zwingli  made 
prominent,  the  great  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

There  is  one  great  Reformation  lesson  we  need  to  learn  at 
this  anniversary,  and  that  is  that  had  Luther  and  Zwingli  not 
emphasized  Christ's  atonement,  there  would  probably  have 
been  no  Reformation.  It  was  Christ's  death,  and  justifica- 
tion through  it,  that  gave  us  the  Reformation.  The  flabby 
sweet-scented  doctrones  of  the  New  Theology  of  today 
would  never  produced  such  a  sensation  or  lead  to  such 
results.  It,  therefore,  behooves  us  on  this  anniversary  of 
the  Reformation  to  get  back  to  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation,  because  there  has  always  been  tremendous 
power  in  them.  They  have  the  dynamic  to  shake  the 
world.  We  of  the  Reformed  need  to  get  back  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  supremacy  of  Scripture  which  he  held  to- 
gether with  Luther.  We  need  to  get  back  to  his  great  doc- 
trine that  Christ  is  the  ransom, — Christ's  Mediatorship  is 
sole  and  his  work  is  complete.  The  theological  cry  was 
some  time  ago  Back  to  Christ,  we  need  to  go  farther  and 
say  "Back  to  Christ  and  Him  Crucified,"  which  was  the 
centre  of  Paul's  preaching.  Nothing  but  the  love  of  Christ, 
as  revealed  in  his  death,  will  ever  conquer  the  world.     The 


ZWINGLI'S  EARLY  THEOLOGY  loi 

more  that  Christ's  atonement  is  given  merely  a  moral  sig- 
nificance, the  less  there  is  of  love  in  it.  It  becomes  merely 
ethical  and  fails  to  satisfy  man's  whole  nature,  especially 
the  emotional  and  the  more  Christ's  atonement  is  reduced 
to  mere  law  by  taking  the  vicariousness  out  of  it  or  by 
making  vicariousness  the  law  of  nature,  so  that  Christ's 
death  was  purely  natural  and  not  supernatural,  the  more  it 
is  evacuated  of  love.  Salvation  is  not  by  law,  for  Christ's 
atonement  is  the  great  exception  to  natural  law.  Love  can 
only  be  revealed  by  grace, — by  God's  free  unmerited  for- 
giveness for  the  sake  of  the  death  of  his  Son,  who  took  our 
place,  dying  in  our  stead.  That  old  doctrine  of  the  ransom 
of  Christ's  is  the  magnet  that  will  draw  the  world  to  him 
as  nothing  else  can  do. 


BOOK  II. 

The  Contribution  of  the  Reformed  to  the  Spirit  of 
Protestantism. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION  AND  ITS 
SIGNIFICANCE  TO  THE  REFORMED. 

The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  especially  con- 
cerns two  Churches,  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran.  But 
as  between  them,  what  is  their  Reformation  significance. 
The  contrast  between  them  is  brought  out  in  our  topic,  the 
unfinished  Lutheran  Reformation  and  its  significance  to  the 
Reformed. 

In  speaking  on  this  subject  it  is  not  our  wish  to  detract 
from  the  character  or  credit  that  belongs  to  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Luther  will  ever  stand  out  as  one  of  the  popular 
heroes  of  the  Reformation.  He  had  a  dramatic  way  of  do- 
ing things,  that  caused  them  to  make  an  impression.  And 
the  Lutheran  Church,  that  he  founded,  should  be  strongly 
praised  for  the  tenacity  with  which  she  held  to  and  de- 
fended his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

But  the  Lutheran  Church  was  not  the  whole  of  the 
Reformation  and  we  fear  that  some  of  its  extreme  admirers 
will  on  this  400th  Anniversary  of  the  Reformation  treat  the 
Reformation  as  if  Luther  and  the  Lutheran  Church  were 
the  whole  of  it  and  make  the  anniversary  wholly  Lutheran. 
We  believe  that  fair-minded  Lutherans  will  not  do  this, 
though  we  fear  that  the  Reformed  side  of  the  Reformation 
will  be  scantily  passed  by  as  of  little  significance  to  them. 
Some  of  them  have  never  given  credit  to  Zwingli  or  Calvin  as 
generously  as  we  have  done  to  Luther.  It  is  to  correct  this 
one-sided  emphasis  of  theirs  and  to  state  the  Reformed  side  of 
the  Reformation  in  its  full  significance  that  we  take  up  this 
subject. 

The  unfinished  Reformation  of  the  Lutheran  Church,— 
this  should  not  be  held  as  too  severe  a  reproach  against 
them.  For  the  Reformation,  whether  Lutheran  or  Re- 
formed, is  not  entirely  finished,  even  in  our  day.  Thus  the 
pietism  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  came  in 


io6  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

to  add  something  to  both  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches.  Each  of  these  Churches  has  developed  and  will 
continue  to  do  so,  but  we  believe  in  harmony  with  their 
historic  position  and  not  away  from  it  into  a  new  theology. 
We  simply  want  here  to  call  attention  to  certain  facts  in 
the  Reformation  that  show  that  the  Reformed  Reforma- 
tion went  farther  than  the  Lutheran.  That  this  is  true  is 
conceded  by  so  great  a  Lutheran  authority  as  the  late  Prof. 
Krauth,  who  named  his  book  on  the  Lutheran  Reformation, 
"The  Conservative  Reformation."  The  Lutherans  were  the 
conservatives  and  the  Reformed  were  the  progressives  at 
that  time.  The  Lutherans  have  charged  us  as  Reformed 
with  being  radicals  and  even  rationalistic :  we  return  the 
charge  by  declaring  their  Reformation  an  unfinished  one 
and  that  it  remained  for  the  Reformed  to  finish  it.  This 
unfinished  Reformation  of  the  Lutherans  can  be  proved  in 
three  ways.  It  was  unfinished  in  doctrine,  worship  and 
government.  In  all  of  these  the  Reformed  went  farther 
than  the  Lutheran. 

The  most  evident  of  these  three  was  in  cultus  or  wor- 
ship. Here  the  difference  between  the  two  Churches  is 
perhaps  most  marked.  The  Lutheran  Church  treated  many 
things  as  indifferent  that  the  Reformed  considered  abso- 
lutely wrong.  In  fact,  as  has  been  suggested  by  Koest- 
lin,  the  Lutherans  of  the  Reformation  did  not  place  worship 
as  quite  on  a  level  with  doctrine.  If  that  be  true,  then  the 
difference  was  that  the  Reformed  placed  worship  on  a  level 
with  doctrine  as  to  its  importance.  The  two  Churches  seem 
to  have  looked  at  worship  from  different  standpoints. 
D'Aubigne  has  well  stated  this  thus, — the  Lutherans  ~  cast 
out  of  the  worship  only  those  things  that  were  forbidden 
by  the  Bible :  the  Reformed  retained  in  the  worship  only 
those  sanctioned  by  the  Bible.  Or  we  may  state  it  in 
another  way — the  Lutherans  used  the  Bible  as  a  rule  nega- 
tively and  the  Reformed  positively. 

As  a  result  the  Reformed  went  farther  than  the  Luth- 
erans, for  there  were  a  number  of  forms  of  worship  that 
lay  between  the  positive  and  negative  application  of  the 
Bible  as  a  rule.  In  saying  that  the  Reformed  went  farther, 
we  are  not  speaking  of  the  iconoclastic   Puritans,   though 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     107 

there  was  a  great  deal  of  Puritanism  in  the  Reformed 
Church  at  the  Reformation.  And  while  we  cannot  defend 
all  the  extravagances  of  Puritanism,  especially  in  relation  to 
art,  yet  there  is  not  much  wonder  that  they  went  so  far. 
If  you  and  I  had  been  worshipping  an  image  of  a  saint  and 
been  praying  to  it  for  many  years  and  would  then  find  out 
that  it  was  a  fraud  and  cheat,  that  it  could  not  hear  our 
prayers  and  could  not  forgive  sins,  the  revulsion  would  be 
apt  to  lead  us  unto  extravagancies.  I  suspect  you  and  I 
would  have  done  the  same  thing.  But  I  am  not  referring 
to  the  extreme  iconoclasts.  Even  the  conservative  Reformed 
then  went  beyond  the  Lutherans  in  revising  the  forms  of 
worship.  And  they  did  it  because  they  had  a  different  principle. 
To  prove  the  difference,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to 
some  of  the  differences  between  the  two  Churches  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation.  We  are  not  speaking  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  at  present  as  much  as  then,  for  the 
Lutherans  since  then  have  in  many  places  accepted  some 
of  the  more  progressive  reforms  of  the  Reformed.  Here 
were  certain  forms  that  the  Lutherans  then  retained,  which 
were  eschewed  by  the  Reformed.  Thus  at  baptism  they  re- 
tained exorcism,  christening  or  the  inaking  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  and  lay-baptism.  At  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  retained 
the  use  of  the  wafer,  while  the  Reformed  used  only  bread 
and  the  latter  insisted  that  the  bread  be  broken  as  symbolic 
of  Christ's  broken  body.  The  Lutherans  also  retained  the 
adoration  of  the  host.  In  the  regular  Lord's  Day  service, 
the  Lutherans  retained  crosses  and  crucifixes,  and  some- 
times lights  and  splendidly  wrought  robes  like  the  Catholics. 
As  late  as  1536  the  delegates  from  Strassburg  were  ofifended 
by  the  presence  of  pictures  and  candles  and  the  elevation 
of  the  elements  in  the  Lutheran  Churches  at  Wittenberg. 
The  Lutherans  retained  many  saints'  days,  which  were  re- 
jected by  the  Reformed  as  not  being  Scriptural.  At  the 
benediction,  the  minister  made  the  sign  of  the  cross.  Some 
of  these  the  Lutheran  Church  has  later  given  up.  To  show  the 
position  of  the  Lutheran  Church  at  that  time  we  give  the  fol- 
lowing.    Luther  in   1528  wrote  to  a  friend: 

"I  condemn  no  ceremonies  but  those  opposed  to  the  Gos- 
pel.    All  others  I  retain  intact  in  our  Church.     For  the  font 


io8  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

stands  and  baptism  is  administered  with  the  same  rites  as 
before  though  the  language  used  is  the  vernacular.  I  even 
leave  the  images  undisturbed  except  those  destroyed  by  the 
rioters  before  my  return.  We  also  celebrate  mass  in  the  cus- 
tomar}'  vestments  and  forms,  only  adding  certain  German  songs 
and  substituting  the  vernacular  in  the  words  of  consecration. 
I  do  not  by  any  means  want  the  Latin  mass  done  away  nor 
would  I  have  permitted  the  use  of  German,  had  I  not  been 
compelled  to.  In  short,  I  hate  nobody  worse  than  him  who 
upsets  free  and  harmless  ceremonies  and  turns  liberty  into 
necessity." 

Writing  in  1539  to  a  Berlin  clergyman  who  was  troubled 
by  the  many  Catholic  ceremonies  retained  in  the  worship  of 
the  newly  established  Church  of  Brandenburg,  he  said : 

"In  God's  name  make  your  processions  with  a  silver  or 
gold  cross  and  with  cowl  and  mantle  of  velvet,  satin  or  linen. 
And  if  your  Lord  the  Elector  does  not  find  one  hood  or  cas- 
sock enough,  put  on  three  as  Aaron,  the  high  priest,  wore 
three  richly  adorned  garments  from  which  the  priestly  robes 
under  the  papacy  got  their  name.  And  if  his  Electoral  grace 
does  not  find  one  circuit  or  procession  enough  with  its  ringing 
and  its  singing,  make  seven  as  Joshua  marched  around  Jericho 
with  the  children  of  Israel,  shouting  and  blowing  trumpets. 
And  if  your  Lord  the  Margrave  would  enjoy  it,  let  his  Elec- 
toral grace  leap  and  dance  in  front  of  the  procession  with 
harps,  kettle-drums,  cymbals  and  bells  as  David  did  before 
the  ark  when  it  was  brought  into  the  city  of  Jerusalem." 

As  late  as  1541,  he  wrote  to  Chancellor  Brueck 

"Our  services,  God  be  praised,  are  so  conducted  as  re- 
gards unessential  things,  that  a  layman  from  Italy  or  Spain 
not  understanding  German,  would  be  compelled  to  say,  on 
seeing  our  mass,  choir,  organs,  bells  and  the  like,  that  ours 
is  a  true  papal  Church,  not  at  all  or  very  little  different  from 
what  he  has  in  his  own  country." 

And  Melancthon  wrote  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  :* 

"Our  Churches  are  falsely  accused  of  abolishing  the  mass, 
for  the  mass  is  retained  on  our  part  and  celebrated  with  great- 
est reverence  and  almost  all  the  ceremonies  that  are  in  use  (in 
the  Catholic  Church)  are  preserved,  saving  that  with  the  things 
sung  in  Latin,  we  mingle  certain  things  sung  in  German  in 
various  parts  of  the  service." 

*  Part  II,  1. 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     109 

And  in  a  letter  July  30,  1530,  to  the  papal  legate,  he  says: 
"A  slight  difference  of  rites  seems  to  be  the  only  cause  of 
opposition  to  the  concord  (with  the  Catholics)." 

The  Reformed  never  talked  that  way.  To  them  the  aboli- 
tion of  these  indifferent  things  was  a  matter  of  conscience  be- 
cause Scriptural.  And  they  cast  them  all  aside.  All  this  only 
proves  that  the  Reformed  went  much  farther  in  worship  or 
cultus  than  the  Lutherans.  They  completed  what  the  Luth- 
erans left  unfinished.  Protestant  worship  wotild  be  different 
today  if  the  Reformed  had  not  come  into  existence. 

We  will  now  leave  this  point  and  go  to  Church  govern- 
ment. Here  too  the  Reformed  went  much  farther  than  the 
Lutherans.  Luther  attempted  in  a  measure  to  organize  the 
Churches,  when  they  came  out  of  Catholicism,  as  in  1527-30. 
But  he  did  not  get  very  far  before  he  stopped.  When  we 
compare  his  effort  at  organization  with  the  farther  advance 
of  the  Reformed,  we  see  how  Zwingli  began,  and  Calvin  and 
Lasco  completed,  the  Reformed  form  of  Church  government. 
Government  too  with  the  Lutherans  did  not  seem  of  so  much 
importance  ?,?  doctrine,  for  there  seemed  to  be  no  necessary 
principle  about  it  as  the  Lutherans  in  Scandinavia  are  Episco- 
pal, and  in  Gern.any  consistorial.  They  did  not  hold  to  the 
parity  of  the  ministry  as  necessary  and  Scriptural  as  the  Re- 
formed did.  Luther  allowed  the  state  to  attend  to  the  form 
of  government.  It  might  have  any  form  it  pleased  except  the 
Catholic.  But  not  so  with  the  Reformed.  They  went  by  a 
fixed  principle, — a  principle  that  is  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,— the  government  must  be  presbyterial  and  autonomous. 
Koestlin,  Luther's  biographer,  grants  that  Luther  was  not  an 
organizer,  for  he  says:  "Luther's  mission  did  not  lie  within  the 
sphere  of  concrete  practical  organization." 

We  see  then  the  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Reformed  was,  that  the  Lutherans  left  each  prince  organize  his 
own  church.  Each  prince  in  Germany  appointed  a  consistory 
composed  of  councillors,  some  ministers,  some  laymen.  Here 
appears  the  Erastianism  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  church 
instead  of  being  autonomous  as  a  true  Reformed  Church  is, 
is  dependent  on  the  state.  Even  in  the  lowest  form  of  Eras- 
tianism, that  the  congregation  and  not  the  prince  has  the  right 
to  call  its  own  minister,  yet  that  call  must  be  confirmed  by  the 


no  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

consistory  of  the  prince.  This  was  different  from  the  Re- 
formed. ZwingH,  it  is  true,  did  not  go  as  far  as  Calvin ;  but 
granted  to  the  state  certain  rights  in  the  Church.  But  Calvin 
declared  that  Church  and  state  had  different  functions.  Al- 
though he  did  not  reach  the  full  separation  of  Church  and  state 
at  Geneva  as  there  exists  in  the  United  States ;  yet  he  started 
an  entering  v^^edge  that  ultimately  drove  them  asunder.  But 
Luther  halted  before  he  got  that  far.  Now  in  Churches  that 
are  Erastian  there  are  two  forms,  a  higher  and  a  lower;  in  the 
one,  the  Church  is  above  the  state  in  authority;  in  the  other, 
the  state  is  above  the  Church.  In  the  latter,  when  the  Refor- 
mation was  introduced,  the  state  simply  took  the  place  of  the 
bishops  and  lorded  over  the  Church  as  before.  This  was  true 
of  some  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Switzerland,  especially 
Bern.  And  also  in  some  parts  of  Germany  the  consistorial 
form  of  government  has  been  introduced  into  the  Reformed 
Church.  But  this  has  been  due  to  the  Lutheran  influences 
from  the  surrounding  districts.  This  consistorial  form  of 
government  was  sometimes  quite  low,  as  it  required  only  the 
presence  of  some  official  of  the  prince  at  the  synod.  But  it  gen- 
erally was  higher,  namely  that  no  action  of  the  synod  was  final 
without  the  approval  of  the  consistory.  And  as  the  Lutheran 
Churches  generally  had  no  synod,  the  consistory  had  all  the 
authority  in  itself.  But  pure  Reformed  Church  government 
gave  all  the  authority  to  the  synod  or  the  Church,  and  not  to 
the  prince.  Therefore  in  Church  government,  the  Reformed 
went  beyond  the  Lutheran  and  the  Lutheran  was  incomplete. 
The  Reformed  went  beyond,  because  they  aimed  to  be  Scrip- 
tural and  only  Scriptural. 

There  was  also  another  difference  between  the  Lutherans 
and  the  Reformed  in  Church  government.  The  distinction  we 
have  just  noticed  was  an  external  one — that  is,  external  to  the 
Church ;  for  it  dealt  with  the  church's  relation  to  the  state. 
But  there  was  also  a  difference  between  them  internally, — 
within  the  Church.  The  Reformed  held  to  representative 
Church  government  within  the  Church.  This  peculiarity  grew 
out  of  the  one  we  have  just  mentioned.  Just  because  the 
Church  was  not  governed  by  the  state,  but  governed  herself, 
she  had  to  develope  a  self-government  of  her  own.  This  she 
did  by  the  representative  method.    The  congregation  had  repre- 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     in 

sentatives  in  the  upper  Church  courts  as  consistory,  classis, 
synod  and  general  synod.  To  each  the  congregation  elected 
elders.  Each  congregation  was  represented  by  elders.  And  in 
its  own  consistory  it  was  represented  by  elders  and  deacons. 
This  representative  form  of  government  has  always  been  the 
peculiarity  of  the  Reformed  Church.  It  was  this  representative 
form  of  government  that  enabled  the  Reformed  to  be  able  to 
found  republics. 

We  thus  see  the  difference  between  the  two  churches  in 
government.  We  in  America  are  not  apt  to  notice  these  dif- 
ferences because  the  Lutheran  Churches  here  are  not  organized 
as  they  are  in  Germany  where  Church  and  state  are  united. 
Here,  w'here  no  princes  rule,  there  are  no  princes  to  appoint  a 
consistory  to  govern  them.  So  they  have  become,  like  the  Re- 
formed, self-governing.  And  they  have  taken  on  themselves 
either  the  congregational  form  of  government,  as  in  the  General 
Synod,  or  a  sort  of  presbyterial,  as  in  the  General  Council.* 
Others  have  superintendents  and  some  talk  of  a  bishop.  To 
show  how  this  lack  of  complete  organization  in  the  Lutlieran 
Church  of  Germany  has  hindered  it,  we  will  give  an  illustration 
given  us  by  one  of  the  leading  Reformed  ministers  of  Germany. 
About  the  year  1817  and  later  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches  in  different  parts  of  Germany  w^ere  united  to  form 
the  Evangelical  Church.  In  this  union,  while  each  was  allowed 
to  retain  its  creeds  and  customs,  yet  the  church  government 
was  a  compromise.  At  the  top  was  placed  the  consistory  taken 
from  the  Lutheran  Church  and  at  the  bottom,  the  synod,  taken 
from  the  Reformed.  This  led  to  the  introduction  of  the  pres- 
byterial form  of  government  into  the  Lutheran  districts  of  Ger- 
many. This  presbyterial  form  of  government  compelled  all 
congregations  to  elect  elders.  And  in  doing  so,  a  peculiar 
condition  was  revealed.  In  many  of  the  Lutheran  districts, 
they  had  great  difficulty  to  find  men  enough  to  serve  as  elders. 
Why?  Because  the  Lutheran  Church  had  not,  in  all  the  cen- 
turies since  the  Reformation,  been  training  up  elders.  Men 
had  almost  to  be  forced  into  the  eldership  so  that  the  positions 
might  be  filled.  Now  this  would  never  have  happened  .in  the 
Reformed  Church.  For  the  Reformed  Church  for  hundreds 
*  But  the  General  Council  has  not  given  to  its  vestrymen  the 
power  that  the  Reformed  Churches  do  in  their  Church  courts. 


112  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

of  years,  ever  since  the  Reformation,  had  been  training  up 
elders  in  its  congregations.  And  what  magnificent  laymen  as 
elders  and  leaders  she  has  had ;  as  in  the  Reformation,  Vadian 
the  Reformer  of  St.  Gall,  Admiral  Coligny  of  France,  Elector 
Frederick  III  of  the  Palatinate  in  Germany  and  William  of 
Orange  in  Holland.  All  these  things  show  that  her  Church 
government  was  therefore  more  complete  than  the  Lutheran. 
The  Reformed  went  beyond  this  unfinished  organization  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  and  fully  organized  themselves.  They  did 
it  because  they  believed  they  found  the  presbyterial  form  of 
Church  government  in  the  New  Testament  where  it  speaks  of 
elders  and  of  the  presbytery  and  where  bishops  and  presbyters 
are  translated  from  the  same  word.  It  would  have  been  a  great 
loss  to  Protestantism  if  the  Reformed  Church  organisation  had 
not  come  into  existence.  For  then  Catholicism  would  have  the 
more  easily  reconquered  Protestantism. 

Having  thus  shown  that  the  Lutheran  Church  has  been  an 
unfinished  Reformation  on  two  points,  cultus  and  government, 
we  now  take  up  the  last  point,  and  that  is  doctrine.  We  may 
surprise  some  when  we  say  that  the  Lutheran  Church  did  not 
complete  her  doctrine.  This  is  not  so  familiar  to  us  in  America. 
Did  we  live  in  Germany,  where  the  two  Churches  exist  side  by 
side,  we  would  be  more  familiar  with  the  doctrinal  diflferences 
between  the  Lutherans  and  Refonned.  Here  the  main  diflFer- 
ence  is  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  although  in  the  German  language 
there  are  also  two  differences  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
The  Lutheran,  closely  following  the  Latin  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  says  "Father  our"  instead  of  "our  father" ;  and  the 
clause  "deliver  .us  from  evil"  is  used  by  the  Lutherans,  while 
the  Reformed  use  the  phrase  "deliver  us  from  the  evil  one." 
In  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Lutherans  use  the  phrase  "Christian 
Church,"  while  the  Reformed  use  "Catholic  Church."  But  in 
Gemiany  they  are  familiar  with  a  whole  line  of  differences 
between  the  two  Churches,  from  the  beginning  of  dogmatics — 
the  doctrine  of  God,  down  to  the  end — the  future  state.  Were 
we  more  fond  of  polemics  than  we  are,  we  might  be  interested 
to  note  these  differences  all  through  the  system  of  theology. 
Time  fails  to  do  this,  but  we  will  note  two  differences  w^iere 
the  Lutherans  failed  to  complete  a  doctrine  and  the  Reformed 
completed  it, — two  instances  where  the  Reformed  went  farther 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     113 

than  the  Lutherans.  The  two  doctrines  referred  to  are  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  justification  by  faith. 

We  will  take  up  the  Lord's  Supper  first.  The  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  holds  that  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  present  "in,  with  and  under"  the  elements,  bread 
and  wine.  Other  Churches  call  this  consubstantiation,  a  name 
that  is  denied  by  the  Lutherans.  But  when  we  come  to  study 
Luther's  doctrine  instead  of  the  general  Lutheran  doctrine,  we 
find  a  difference.  We  find  that  Luther  dififered  at  dififerent 
times.  There  may  be  said  to  have  been  two  Luthers,  an  early 
and  a  late  one.  The  first  was  when  he  first  came  out  against 
the  Catholics  and  reacted  against  their  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation ;  the  later  period  was  when  he  was  defining  himself  not 
against  the  Catholics  but  against  the  Sacramentarians,  as  he 
called  the  Reformed.  Luther's  controversies  with  Zwingli  and 
the  Reformed  caused  him  to  narrow  down,  and  he  hardened 
his  views.  In  his  early  days  Luther  was  broader  in  his  sympa- 
thies. His  views,  as  we  shall  see,  inclined  more  toward  the 
Reformed  than  later.  The  change  occurs  between  1523  and 
1526.  The  Luther  before  that  time  is  in  some  respects  dififerent 
from  the  Luther  after  it.  In  fact  Luther's  views  in  his  develop- 
ment of  the  sacrament  are  an  interesting  study. 

We  get  Luther's  early  views  on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  four 
of  his  works : 

1.  The  Sermon  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  15 19. 

2.  The  Sermon  on  the  New  Testament,  1520. 

3.  The  Treatise  on  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church, 

1520. 

4.  The  Abuse  of  the  Mass,  1522. 
Let  us  look  at  these  dififerent  works. 

The  first  extended  statement  of  Luther's  views  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  in  his  "Treatise  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament" 
(1519).  The  great  emphasis  of  this  work  is  significant.  He 
has  not  a  word  to  say  about  the  sacrifice  in  the  mass,  which 
was  the  Catholic  view.  But  he  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about 
faith  and  its  necessity.  Almost  his  first  assertion  is  the  quota- 
tion from  Augustine,  "Why  preparest  thou  stomach  and  teeth  ? 
Only  believe  and  thou  hast  already  partaken  of  the  sacrament." 
This  phrase  seems  to  be  the  clue  to  all  the  rest.  The  theme  of 
the  sermon  is  fellowship  with  the  saints.     It  is  divided  into 


114  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

three  points — the  sign,  the  significance  of  the  sign  and  faith. 
And  more  than  half  of  it  is  taken  up  with  the  third  part— faith ; 
for  he  says  that  on  faith  all  depends.    He  says : 

"It  is  not  enough  that  you  know  the  sacrament  as  a 
fellowship,  &c..  you  must  desire  it  and  firmly  believe  that  you 
have  received  it.  You  must  not  doubt  that  you  have  what  the 
sacrament  signifies,  that  is,  that  you  are  certain  Christ  and 
all  his  saints  come  to  you,  bringing  all  their  virtues,  sufferings 
and  mercies  to  live,  work,  suffer  and  die  for  you  and  be  wholly 
yours." 

He  denies  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  "opus  operatum," 
that  is,  has  virtue  intrinsically  in  itself;  but  it  is  an  "opus 
operantis,"  that  is,  has  not  virtue  in  itself ;  for  faith  is  neces- 
sary to  make  it  efficacious. 

"  'The  sacrament  is  for  us,'  he  says,  'a  food,  a  bridge,  a 
door,  a  ship,  and  a  litter,  on  which  and  by  which,  we  pass  from 
this  world  into  eternal  life.    Therefore  all  depends  on  faith.'  " 

The  second  treatise  is  his  "Sermon  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment." Here  the  emphasis  is  somewhat  different  from  the  for- 
mer treatise,  for  he  emphasizes  the  presence  of  the  spiritual  body 
of  Christ.  But  almost  at  the  very  beginning,  he  emphasizes  the 
necessity  of  faith,  as  in  Section  6,  "Trust  and  faith  is  the 
beginning,  the  middle  and  end  of  all  works  and  righteousness."^ 
He  defines  the  sacrament  as 

"The  sign  and  seal  of  the  testament  in  which  Christ  has 
bequeathed  to  us  the  remission  of  all  sin  and  eternal  life.  The 
taste  for  the  riches  of  Christ's  testament  comes  by  the  faith 
which  believes  and  is  trusting  the  testament  and  promise. 
There  are  many  saints  who,  like  Paul  and  Hermit,  remained 
for  years  in  the  desert  without  mass  and  yet  were  never  with- 
out mass.  'The  reason  was  they  had  faith.'  When  there  is  no 
faith  there,  no  prayer  helps  nor  the  hearing  of  many  masses." 

Especially  striking  is  Luther's  repeated  assertion  that  faith. 
which  leans  on  the  Word  and  is  the  "principle  part  of  the 
mass,"  does  not  absolutely  need  a  sacrament.     He  says : 

"I  can  daily  enjoy  the  sacrament  in  the  mass,  if  only  I 
keep  before  my  eyes  the  testament,  that  is,  the  words  and 
covenant  of  Christ  and  feed  and  strengthen  my  faith  thereby." 

The  third  work  in  which  he  refers  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  his  "Babylonish  Captivity."     His  "Address  to  the  Christian 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     115 

Nobility  of  Germany"  was  his  great  brief  on  the  rights  of 
the  laity.  But  this  "Babylonish  Captivity"  was  not  written  to 
the  secular  powers  but  to  the  Church.  In  it  he  takes  up  tlie 
Romish  sacraments  and  handles  them  without  gloves,  showing 
how  they  blind  the  people  and  keep  them  in  captivity.  In  this, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  discussion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  he 
begins  again  with  a  reference  to  Augustine's  dictum,  "Believe 
and  thou  hast  eaten."  The  first  captivity  is  the  incompleteness 
of  the  mass  by  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity.  The  second 
is  transubstantiation.     The  third  is  that  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice. 

"The  mass  is  a  divine  promise  which  can  profit  no  one, 
intercede  for  no  one  and  be  communicated  to  no  one,  save 
him  alone  who  believes  with  a  faith  of  his  own.  For  the  mass, 
being  the  promise  of  God,  is  not  fulfilled  by  praying,  but  only 
by  believing."  ' 

Speaking  of  Judas  he  says  (217),  "It  always  remains  tlie 
same  sacrament  and  testament  which  works  in  the  believer  its 
own  work,  in  the  unbeliever,  a  strange  work."  Luther  declared 
that  the  sacraments  were  mere  signs  of  the  forgiving  love  of 
God  in  Christ.    Unless  there  was  faith  they  could  not  help. 

In  1523  Luther  says: 

"Faith,  without  which  the  outward  reception  is  nothing, 
stands  in  this,  that  we  firmly  believe  that  Christ,  God's  son, 
stands  for  us  and  has  taken  all  our  sins  upon  his  neck  and  is 
the  eternal  satisfaction  for  our  sins  and  reconciles  us  before 
God  to  the  Father.  Who  has  faith  belongs  to  this  sacrament. 
Who  stands  in  such  faith  belongs  here  and  takes  the  sacrament 
as  an  assurance  and  sign  or  specification  that  he  is  sure  of 
the  divine  promise  and  consent,  that  this  bread  is  a  comfort 
to  the  sorrowing,  a  medicine  to  the  sick,  life  to  the  dying, 
bread  to  the  hungry,  and  a  rich  treasure  to  all  poor  and 
needy." 

All  these  quotations  reveal  Luther's  early  emphasis  on  faith 
or  the  subjective  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  was  very  diflferent 
from  his  later  emphasis  on  the  objective  or  the  presence  of 
Christ's  body  in  the  elements  of  the  Supper.  Luther's  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  consisted  of  three  parts: 

1.  The  relation  of  the  Supper  to  us,  that  is,  our  faith. 

2.  The  relation  of  the  Supper  to  our  Lord,— the  presence 
of  his  body. 


ii6  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

3.  The  relation  of  the  Supper  to  the  Word  of  God. 

In  his  early  period  he  emphasized  the  first.  We  agree  with 
Goebel  in  his  admirable  essay  on  Luther's  early  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  (Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1843,  Page 
357)  that  Luther's  early  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
quite  different  from  his  later  doctrine.  But  we  can  not  quite 
go  as  far  as  to  say  that  it  was  virtually  Reformed  and  that  the 
Reformed  could  virtually  accept  Luther's  early  doctrine.  For 
while  the  Reformed  could  thoroughly  agree  with  Luther  on 
his  emphasis  on  faith  in  that  sacrament,  yet  all  the  while 
he  does  not  deny  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body,  indeed 
hints  at  its  presence.  And  although  he  does  not  say  as  much 
about  the  sacramental  use  of  the  Word  of  God  as  he  does 
later,  yet  it  appears  slightly  in  his  early  writings.  But  Goebel 
is  right  in  saying  that  Carlstadt  in  his  reformation  at  Witten- 
berg (while  Luther  was  absent  at  the  Wartburg)  and  which 
Luther  so  bitterly  attacked,  was  really  carrying  out  Luther's 
earlier  teachings.  Carlstadt's  view  was  that  Christ's  death,  and 
not  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  sacra- 
ment, was  the  ground  for  forgiveness.  Carlstadt  cast  aside,  as 
we  have  seen,  transubstantiation  and  consubstantiation,  the 
elevation  of  the  host  and  its  adoration,  the  real  presence,  the 
specific  sacramental  activity  and  the  distribution  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  It  was  the  extremes  to  which  Carlstadt 
went,  that  led  Luther  to  react  against  his  earlier  positions.. 
And  from  the  time  of  his  controversy  with  Carlstadt  he  be- 
came more  and  more  conservative  and  more  and  more  empha- 
sized the  other  two  elements  of  his  doctrine,  the  presence  of 
Christ's  body  and  the  power  of  the  Word  in  the  sacrament. 

In  order  to  understand  the  efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
it  is  necessary  to  notice  that  there  are  three  views  about  it.  At 
one  extreme  is  the  view  that  the  sacraments  have  efficacy  in 
themselves,  and  that  regardless  of  faith  or  the  spiritual  con- 
dition of  the  believer.  This  was  the  "opus  operatum"  theory 
of  the  Catholics.  The  water  in  baptism  in  itself  cleanses  with- 
out faith.  And  the  bread  and  wine  feed  the  soul  without  faith, 
because  of  their  inherent  efficacy. 

At  the  other  extreme  is  the  subjective  view  of  sacramental 
efficacy.  This  has  been  the  Reformed  view.  The  sacraments 
have  no  efficacy  unless  faith  is  present.     It  is  this  subjective 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     117 

side  that  comes  out  in  the  early  ZwingUan  and  the  Calvinistic 
views.  Zwingli's  at  first  made  it  a  memorial, — we  were  to  re- 
member Christ's  death,— a  subjective  process.  Calvin  said  that 
at  the  Supper  we  are  to  lift  up  our  minds  away  from  the  ele- 
ments up  to  heaven  where  Christ  is  and  thus  commune  with 
him;  also  an  intellectual  and  subjective  process.  The  Re- 
formed thus  emphasized  the  subjective  element.  But  that  is 
just  what  Luther  did  in  his  earlier  works.  Faith  to  him  was 
everything,  as  we  have  just  seen.  Thus  far  Luther  was  Re- 
formed. 

The  reason  why  Luther  so  greatly  emphasized  faith  in  his 
earlier  writings  was  probably  due  to  his  emphasis  on  justifica- 
tion by  faith.  His  reaction  against  the  Catholic  doctrine  of 
justification  by  works  would  naturally  lead  him  to  emphasize 
faith.  If  faith  was  so  necessary  for  our  salvation,  it  was  also 
necessary  for  the  sacrament.  Luther  shows  this  emphasis  on. 
faith,  especially  in  his  first  work,  to  which  we  have  referred. 
In  his  second,  the  emphasis  on  the  Word  begins  to  appear. 
Later  Luther's  emphasis  was  more  on  the  presence  of  Christ's 
body.  So  we  see  that  he  finally  accepted  the  third  view, 
namely,  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  lay  not  in  the 
objective  efficacy  alone  nor  in  the  subjective  state  of  the  mind 
alone.  His  view  was  a  compromise  view — it  was  an  objective- 
subjective  view.  The  efficacy  lay  not  in  the  elements  them- 
selves as  according  to  the  Catholic  or  objective  view ;  but  it 
lay  in  the  presence  of  Christ's  body,  which  however  must  be 
received  by  faith.  He  thus  held  on  to  objectivity  (for  Christ's 
body  was  objective  to  us).  And  he  also  held  on  to  the  subjec- 
tive in  demanding  faith.  So  while  the  emphasis  was  laid  in  his 
earlier  writings,  as  we  have  seen,  on  the  subjective  or  faith ; 
it  is  in  his  later  writings  laid  on  the  presence  of  Christ's  body 
rather  than  faith.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Lutherans 
after  Luther's  death  split  into  two  camps,  the  high  Lutherans, 
holding  to  ubiquity  and  that  the  unworthy  received  Christ's 
body  through  the  mouth.*  And  these  claimed  to  be  following 
Luther  in  holding  to  it.    But  this  does  not  at  all  agree  with  his 

*Westphal  and  his  followers  were  not  content  with  "vere" 
(true)  and  "substantialiter"  (substantially)  but  they  added  "cor- 
porealiter"  (corporeally),  "dentaliter"  (with  the  teeth),  "gutturaliter" 
(through  the  throat)  and  "stomachaliter"   (taken  into  the  stomach). 


ii8  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

earlier  view,  for  then  faith  was  the  important  element  and  was 
necessary.  They  followed  Luther  in  his  later  views,  as  Mel- 
ancthon  and  the  Melancthonians  followed  his  earlier  views. 

All  this  shows  how  far  Luther  got  at  last  from  his  first 
position  as  given  in  the  works  that  we  have  quoted.  His  con- 
troversy with  Carlstadt  led  him  as  we  have  seen  to  react  against 
these  earlier  views  and  his  controversy  with  Zwingli  and  the 
Reformed  led  him  more  and  more  to  react  against  the  sub- 
jective view  and  to  emphasize  the  "real  presence"  of  Christ's 
body,  as  he  calls  it  in  the  sacrament.  His  emphasis  later,  as 
at  the  Marburg  Conference,  was  on  "the  Word"  as  used  by  the 
priest  in  the  sentence  "This  is  my  body."  In  his  growing  em- 
phasis on  the  power  of  the  Word  spoken  at  the  Supper,  he 
harks  back  to  the  magical  idea  of  the  Catholics,  that  those 
words  "This  is  my  body"  performed  the  miracle  of  trans- 
substantiation.  We  thus  see  that  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  there 
was  an  dififerent  emphasis  by  the  earlier  and  the  later  Luther. 
His  earlier  views  would  have  largely  harmonized  with  the  Re- 
formed for  he  emphasized  the  subjectivity  of  the  sacrament, 
as  did  the  Reformed.  Very  occasionally  he  speaks  of  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ's  body.  And  when  Calvin  later  formulated  the 
spiritual  presence  of  Christ  at  the  Supper,  the  only  difference 
was  that  the  Calvin  made  Christ's  presence  spiritual  and  Luther 
made  it  natural  and  material. 

Now  what  is  the  significance  of  all  this.  It  is  that  Luther 
in  his  early  writings  emphasized  very  much  the  subjective  in 
faith.  It  is  that  the  Reformed,  and  not  the  Lutheran,  have 
continued  what  was  the  emphasis  of  Luther  in  his  early  works. 
The  Reformed  could  have  accepted  Luther's  first  tract  on  the 
Supper  (1519)  except  where  he  makes  incidental  reference  to 
the  prayers  of  the  saints  for  us.  But  as  far  as  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  concerned,  that  tract  is  largely  Reformed  doctrine. 
Would  that  Luther  had  remained,  where  he  stood  at  first,  for 
then  there  would  not  have  been  the  great  and  unfortunate  divi- 
sion between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed. 

And  there  is  another  significance  about  this.  The  reason 
why  the  Reformed  later  became  victorious  in  large  parts  of 
Germany,  as  the  Palatinate.  Hesse,  Anhalt,  Lippe,  Bremen. 
Northern  Rhine,  Sec,  was,  that  they  continued  the  original 
Lutheranism.     Where  Lutheranism  had  not  become  polemic. 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     119 

but  had  retained  the  original  irenic  spirit,  there  the  Reformed 
doctrines  found  lodgment.  We  often  say  that  the  introduction 
of  the  Reformed  doctrines  into  Germany  was  due  to  a  reaction 
against  the  narrowness  and  bigotry  of  the  later  high  Lutherans. 
But  was  it  only  a  reaction?  No,  it  was  not  only  a  reaction,  it 
was  a  development  These  low  Lutherans  felt  the  Reformed 
views  were  more  nearly  theirs  of  the  early  Lutheran  Reforma- 
tion than  those  of  the  high  Lutherans.  And  so  they  accepted 
them.  The  significance  of  it  all  was  this, — the  Reformed  con- 
tinued Luther's  earlier  views  in  his  emphasis  on  subjectivity 
in  the  sacrament.  And  the  significance  of  it  to  us  as  Re- 
formed and  Presbyterians  is  that  we  are  in  the  main  propagat- 
ing the  original  views  of  Luther.  But  we  do  not  hold  these 
views  because  they  are  Luther's ;  for  the  Reformed  always 
refused  to  take  any  man's  name  as  their  own.  But  we  do  so 
because  they  are  found  in  the  New  Testament  and  so  have  the 
authority  of  the  Word  of  God  behind  them. 

We  have  thus  noticed  the  incompleteness  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  we  have  seen  how  the  Re- 
formed have  completed  it  in  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the 
spiritual  presence  of  Christ  at  the  Supper.  We  now  pass  on  to 
take  up  another  doctrine  that  Luther  and  the  Lutherans  left 
incomplete  and  that  it  remained  for  the  Reformed  to  complete. 
It  was  no  less  a  doctrine  than  the  one  that  Luther  said  was  the 
"standing  or  falling  doctrine"  of  the  Church, — the  one  that 
Luther  and  the  Lutherans  have  always  claimed  to  make  cen- 
tral,— namely,  justification  by  faith.  One  would  think,  from 
the  emphasis  they  laid  on  it,  that  they  had  completed  it,  but 
they  did  not.  And  it  remained  for  the  Reformed  to  do  so. 
Luther  began  teaching  it  and  that  was  a  great  deal,  but  did  not 
finish  it.  The  Reformed  went  beyond  him.  Calvin  virtually 
completed  the  doctrine.  And  this  he  did  especially  on  two 
important  points.* 

The  first  of  these  additions  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
justification  is  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  did  not  lead  to  assur- 

*  For  the  suggestions  of  this  subject  I  am  indebted  to  Rev.  Prof. 
A.  Lang,  D.D.,  of  Halle,  who  delivered  an  address  upon  it  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Reformed  Alliance  of  Germany  in  1913,  and  it  was 
since  published. 


I20  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

ance,  the  Reformed,  did.  Luther's  lack  of  assurance  is  shown 
by  the  way  in  which  he  first  laid  hold  of  the  doctrine.  In  his 
lectures  on  Romans  1515-1516,  he  is  uncertain  about  salvation, 
although  at  times  he  has  a  belief  in  salvation  by  faith.  Then  he 
would  fall  back  on  works  again.  Even  after  he  had  come  to 
justification  by  faith  there  is  uncertainty.  And  this  uncertainty 
at  the  beginning  remained  with  him  to  some  extent  to  the  end. 
Thus  he  shows  it  in  his  Larger  Catechism  in  the  6th  petition, 
"Altho  we  obtain  forgiveness  of  errors  and  peace  of  conscience, 
altho  we  have  been  cleansed  in  every  way  from  sin,  yet  it  is 
true  in  regard  to  our  conduct,  that  today  one  stands,  but  to- 
morrow one  falls."  Luther  followed  Augustine  very  closely 
and  Augustine  with  all  his  doctrine  of  election  never  rose  up 
to  full  assurance,  because  he  tried  to  tack  his  sacramentarianism 
on  to  it  by  means  of  baptism  regeneration.  Harnack  says : 
"With  all  his  horror  of  sin,  Augustine  had  not  experienced 
the  horror  of  the  uncertainty  of  salvation.  Luther  therefore 
thought  that  no  one  could  be  sure  of  salvation  possessing 
assurance." 

Luther  never  rose  as  did  Calvin  up  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
perseverance  of  the  saints,  which  meant  "once  a  saint,  always  a 
saint."  The  certainty  that  came  from  that  idea,  Luther  did  not 
have.  He  sought  certainty  in'  every  way,  especially  in  the 
objective  gifts  of  God, — the  Word  and  the  sacraments.  Very 
important  to  him  was  baptism.  For  by  it,  he  thought  God  by 
an  objective  rite  worked  regeneration.  And  extremely  impor- 
tant to  him  was  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  pledge  to  him  of  for- 
giveness, because  the  body  of  Christ  was  in  it,  and  the  minister 
had  said  over  it  the  magical  words  of  institution.  But  these 
external  rites  could  not  produce  absolute  certainty  of  salva- 
tion. Luther  held  all  the  time  to  the  idea  of  the  strenuous 
life — the  doing  of  everything  possible  in  order  to  get  assurance, 
yet  never  absolutely  getting  it.  But  the  Reformed  went  farther. 
They  had  among  their  doctrines,  one  that  gave  them  perfect 
assurance.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  election.  They  founded  the 
assurance  of  faith  not  merely  on  an  experience  as  did  the 
Anabaptists,  or  on  external  rites  (the  sacraments  and  the 
Word)  as  did  the  Lutherans.  But  they  founded  it  on  the 
decree  of  God,  They  were  in  God's  hand  as  clay  in  the  hands 
of  the  potter.    Election  was  sure,  for  with  God  nothing  could 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     121 

fail.  Therefore  they  easily  passed  from  justification  to  assur- 
ance, making  assurance  the  last  part  of  faith  and  so  of  justifica- 
tion. Now  the  doctrine  of  election  is  in  these  days  not  so 
popular  as  it  once  was ;  but  it  contains  in  it  a  truth  that  ought 
never  to  be  forgotten,  namely,  that  God,  and  not  chance,  is  the 
foundation  of  everything.  It  may  seem  to  some  to  be  an  over- 
emphasis on  God.  But  that  very  emphasis  on  God  gave  it 
tremendous  power  and  made  it  a  tremendous  comfort  to  God's 
people.  They  felt  God  could  be  implicitly  trusted.  What  great 
saints  this  doctrine  made.  The  Calvinists  went  into  battle  or 
persecution  or  death  without  fear,  for  they  were  "God's  elect." 
And  while  the  doctrine  of  election  may  be  very  much  modified 
in  our  days,  yet  when  the  great  truth  that  is  in  it  is  lost,  namely, 
God's  sovereignty  and  also  his  love,  the  world  will  be  poorer 
and  God's  people  more  comfortless,  for  their  great  comfort  of 
assurance  is  gone.  It  was  this  great  doctrine  of  assurance  of 
faith  that  has  been  the  comfort  of  the  Calvinist, — not  the  as- 
surance of  Wesleyanism  that  depends  on  feeling  that  may  pass 
away,  but  the  great  assurance  that  we  are  God's  because  we 
are  his  elect.  Historically  therefore  we  say  that  the  Reformed 
went  beyond  Luther  in  assurance  in  justification. 

Then  on  another  point  the  Reformed  went  beyond  Luther 
on  this  doctrine.  They  ethicized  justification,  that  is,  they  put 
into  justification  a  moral  element.  It  goes  without  saying  that 
Calvin  was  the  great  Ethicist  of  the  reformation.  Though 
Calvin  in  his  theology  made  so  much  of  God's  act  in  election, 
yet  he  demanded  man's  act  in  doing  right.  Here  he  also  went 
beyond  Luther.  Luther  in  his  intense  opposition  to  justification 
by  works  so  emphasized  faith  as  to  leave  works  out.  He 
separated  the  doctrine  of  faith  from  what  ought  always  to  be 
connected  with  it,  good  works.  He  tended  to  place  faith  and 
works  into  juxtaposition  with  each  other.  He  insisted  on 
justification  pure  and  simple.  He  did  not  place  works  at  the 
beginning  of  justification  as  did  the  Catholics,  nor  did  he  place 
it  at  the  end  even  by  a  synergism  as  did  Melancthon.  He  was 
solafidian  throughout,  that  it,  by  faith  alone. 

But  with  Calvin,  justification  always  had  in  it  an  ethical 
element.  Not  that  works  saved  us.  In  rejecting  justification 
by  works,  he  was  at  once  with  Luther.  But  while  Luther  said 
justification  was  by  faith,  Calvin  said  it  was  by  God.     They 


122  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

meant  the  same  thing,  only  Luther  emphasized  faith,  and  Cal- 
vin, God. 

Again  Luther  most  pronouncedly  sets  the  law  over  against 
faith.  Calvin  did  not  set  them  over  against  each  other,  for 
faith  included  the  law,  that  is,  the  observance  of  the  law.  He 
thus  put  an  ethical  element  in  faith.  He  was  not  so  much  afraid 
of  works  as  Luther.  He  put  them  into  the  doctrine,  not  at  the 
beginning  as  the  Catholics,  but  at  the  end.  Thus  a  man  never 
could  be  justified  if  he  were  impure  or  unrighteous.  There 
was  an  ethical  necessity  because  faith  was  not  complete  without 
works.  He  thus  did  not  separate  faith  and  works  as  did 
Luther,  but  he  put  them  together.  Every  act  of  justification 
implied  an  ethical  element  in  it.  It  was  just  this  ethical  element 
that  Calvin  did  not  overlook  in  the  doctrine.  Calvin  placed  less 
value  on  subjective  assurance,  for  he  demanded  the  presence  of 
good  works  as  evidence  of  saving  faith.  The  doctrine  of  the 
perseverance  of  the  saints  was  not  mere  tenacity  in  holding  on 
to  God,  but  it  was  their  consistent  activities  in  the  energies  of 
the  Christian  life.  This  ethical  peculiarity  of  the  Reformed 
grew  out  of  their  doctrinal  beliefs.  They  believed  in  election, 
but  they  believed  that  no  man  was  elect  unless  his  life  as  a  whole 
was  up  to  his  election.  They  believed  in  justification,  but  it 
was  not  justification  unless  there  was  an  ethical  temper  about 
the  conversion. 

On  these  two  points  therefore,  on  assurance  and  on  the 
ethical,  the  Reformed  went  beyond  the  Lutherans  on  the  subject 
of  justification.  They  thus  completed  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
justification. 

Taking  our  whole  subject  together,  Luther  left  matters 
incomplete  on  three  points,  cuttus,  doctrine  and  government. 
What  a  fortunate  thing  for  the  world  and  for  Protestantism 
it  was  that  the  Reformed  came  in  to  complete  what  Luther 
began.  Or  putting  it  the  other  way,  how  unfortunate  it  would 
have  been  for  the  world  and  for  Protestantism  had  the  Refor- 
mation stopped  with  the  Lutherans,  and  the  Reformed  side  of 
the  Reformation  never  had  been  born.  The  Reformation  would 
have  been  like  Ephraim  "a  cake  not  turned" — only  half-baked. 
The  influence  of  the  Reformed  side  of  the  Reformation  for 
purer  worship,  for  higher  morals,  for  better  Church  govern- 
ment would  have  been  lost.    It  is  therefore  evident  that  much 


UNFINISHED  LUTHERAN  REFORMATION     123 

as   Lutheranism  has   done,  a  large  part  of  the  work  of  the 
Reformation  was  not  Lutheran.     And  that  part  must  not  be 
forgotten   in   our   glorification   of   Luther   at   this   time.      We 
rejoice  in  what  Luther  did,  we  admire  his  heroism.     His  fail- 
ings are  covered  over  by  the  greatness  of  his  work,  as  ought 
to  be  the  case  with  our  judgment  of  each  of  the  Reformers. 
But  that  does  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  if  the  Reformation 
had  gone  no  farther  than  Lutheranism,  there  would  have  been 
a  great  loss  to  the  Protestant  world.     If  the  worship  of  the 
Protestants  had  remained  as  in  the  early  Lutheran  Church  of 
the  Reformation,  we  would  have  altars  and  crucifixes  in  our 
Churches — the  sign  of  the  cross  would  be  made  at  baptisms 
and  in  pronouncing  the  benediction.     At  the  Lord's  Supper 
there  would  be  adoration  of  the  elements.     I  am  not  speaking 
of  the  Lutheranism  of  today   (which  often  under  Reformed 
influence  has  sloughed  oflF  some  of  these  Catholic  superstitions). 
Now  such  half  measures  never  produced  sturdiness  of 
character.    And  that  is  what  the  Lutheran  Reformation  lacked 
often.    We  will  give  an  illustration  of  the  diflference  of  this  as 
between  the  Lutheran  and  tlie  Reformed;  and  others  might 
be  given.     In  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  there  were  two 
districts  of  the  Palatinate.     The  larger  part  was  the  Lower 
Palatinate  along  the  river  Rhine  whose  capital  was  Heidelberg. 
The  Upper  Palatinate  was  several  hundred  miles  to  the  south- 
east, whose  capital  was  Amberg.     The  first  named  Palatinate 
was  Reformed,  the  last  named  persistently  refused  to  become 
Reformed  and  remained  strictly  Lutheran.     Then  what  hap- 
pened?    In  the  awful  Thirty  Years'  war  in  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  both  Palatinates  were  overrun  by  the 
Catholic   armies.      When   the   war   was   over,   there   was   no 
Lutheran   Church   in  the  Upper  Palatinate,  it  had  all  gone 
clean  over  to  the  Catholics.     But  the  Lower  Palatinate  was 
still   Reformed  and   persistently   refused   during  the   war  to 
become  Catholic.     It  was  easy  for  the  Upper  Palatinate  to  go 
back  to  Catholicism  because  there  was  so  little  diflference  in 
their  rites.     But  the  Reformed  absolutely  refused  to  do  so. 
They  were  summoned  before  the  city  hall  at  Heidelberg  and 
commanded  to  become  Catholics.     They  declared  they  would 
give  up  their  lands  and  emigrate  elsewhere— yes,  they  would 
give  up  their  lives:  but  they  would  not  give  up  their  Reformed 
faitli. 


CHAPTER  11. 

THE  CONTRIBUTION  OP  ZWINGU  TO  THE  SPIRIT  OP  THE 
REPORMATION.* 

•There' is  what  may  be  called  a  Spirit  of  the  Reformation. 
This  spirit  of  the  Reformation  differed  from  other  ages.  It 
differed  from  that  of  the  Middle  Ages  before  it.  And  it  dif- 
fered from  the  age  after  the  Reformation  and  from  the  spirit 
of  the  present  scientific  age  in  which  we  live. 

To  this  spirit  of  the  Reformation,  each  nation  and  each 
Reformer  made  a  contribution.  The  spirit  of  the  Reforma- 
tion is  the  combination  of  all  these  and  more.  Luther  made  his 
contribution  to  this  Reformation  spirit  by  his  inspiration. 
So  did  Melancthon  by  his  scholarship.  Calvin  contributed  most 
to  the  permanent  organization  of  the  Reformation.  Even  the 
lesser  Reformers  as  Beza  and  Viret  and  Lasco  contributed  their 
share.  Tonight  I  take  up  the  contribution  that  Zwingli  made 
to  this  spirit  of  the  Reformation. 

Now  before  beginning  this  topic  it  will  be  necessary  to 
clear  the  ground  somewhat  of  things  that  all  these  Reformers 
held  in  common.  Rev.  Dr.  Schaff  has  stated  in  his  histories 
that  there  were  three  great  Reformation  doctrines,  the  suprem- 
acy of  Scripture  and  justification  by  faith;  and  he  later  added, 
after  he  had  gotten  out  from  Mercersburg  Theology,  the  priest- 
hood of  all  believers.  Now  the  first  and  last  of  these  were 
peculiarities  of  both  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches. 
Both  Luther  and  Zwingli  held  to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
and  the  priesthood  of  all  believers.  The  doctrine  of  justification 
was  pre-eminently  a  Lutheran  doctrine ;  and  so  of  it  we  need 
not  speak  just  now.  But  we  can  set  aside  these  Reformation 
peculiarities  that  were  common  to  all  and  take  up  the  things 

*  This  Chapter  is  an  address  delivered  before  the  Eastern  Synod 
of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States.  October  17,  1916. 
We  have  left  it  unchanged,  which  will  explain  why  it  repeats  certain 
thoughts  in  the  rest  of  this  work. 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ZWINGLI  125 

in  which  Zwingli  made  his  pecuUar  contribution  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Reformation. 

I.  The  first  contribution  he  made  was  that  he  stands  out  as 
the  Political  Reformer.  Have  you  ever  noticed  that  he  was  a 
political  Reformer  before  he  became  a  religious  Reformer.  In 
his  early  ministry,  in  his  first  charge  at  Glarus,  he  already  began 
opposing  the  foreign  mercenary  service  of  the  Swiss  soldiers 
who  were  fighting  for  other  lands.  This  subject  was  forced 
upon  him  by  the  evils  that  came  out  of  it  in  his  own  parish,  for 
he  had  a  habit  of  talking  out  on  the  evils  of  the  day.  It  was 
his  attacks  on  this  foreign  service  that  compelled  him  to  leave 
Glarus,  as  the  military  party  in  his  congregation  began  making 
things  unpleasant  for  him.  We  thus  see  that  his  political 
activity  came  out  early.  And  when  later  he  became  pastor  at 
Zurich  he  pursued  the  same  policy  unflinchingly.  It  was 
through  his  efforts,  his  almost  superhuman  efforts  (and  this  is 
often  forgotten  by  those  who  study  his  life),  that  Zurich  gave 
up  sending  its  citizens  away  as  soldiers.  The  difficulty  of  this 
act  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  other  states  of  Switzerland 
favored  doing  so.  Zurich  stood  alone  for  a  while  and  all 
because  of  Zwingli. 

Now  Luther  on  this  point  is  ZwingH's  antipodes.  He  abso- 
lutely refused  to  countenance  the  use  of  the  secular  power  by 
the  Church.  He  held  to  the  purely  spiritual  view  of  the 
Church,  which  meant  that  God  would  take  care  of  his  Church 
and  the  states  should  take  care  of  themselves  politically.  Thus, 
especially  over  against  Luther,  Zwingli  stands  out  as  the  great 
Political  Reformer. 

For  this  he  has  been  most  severely  criticized.  The  Church 
histories  have  been  full  of  this  criticism.  But  we  of  the  Re- 
formed should  remember  that  some  part  of  this  criticism  has 
as  its  basis  a  narrow  Lutheran  bias  which  I  am  glad  to  say 
some  Lutherans  do  not  have.  And  this  prejudice  against 
Zwingli  thus  cuhivated,  has  been  helped  on  here  by  the  spirit 
of  America.  For  we  in  the  United  States  have  so  strongly 
emphasized  the  separation  of  Church  and  state  that  any  political 
activity  has  seemed  objectionable  to  many. 

Your  speaker  would  however  like  to  interpose  a  caveat 
just  here  about  this.  He  is  suspicious  that  if  you  or  I  were  in 
the  same  position  as  Zwingli  was  in  the  Reformation,  we  would 


126  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

probably  do  the  same  thing,  or  at  least  something  very  much 
like  it.  I  suppose  I  am  historically  heretical  for  saying  this. 
But  for  the  fads  of  Church  historians  I  pay  little  respect.  What 
I  want  is  truth.  What  I  mean  is  that  Zwingli  has  been  over- 
criticized  for  his  political  activity.  Remember  that  he  lived  in 
a  republic.  He  had  no  power  over  him  as  Luther  had  in  his 
prince,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  to  attend  to  his  politics  for  him. 
He  was  a  prince  himself  as  was  every  other  citizen  of  a  republic 
like  Switzerland.  Much  of  his  political  activity  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  he  lived  in  a  republic,  while  Luther  lived  in  a  mon- 
archy. Then  remember  also  too  that  Zurich  was  isolated  from 
the  other  cantons  politically  for  several  years  and  just  because 
through  Zwingli  she  had  become  Protestant.  It  was  an  awful 
isolation.  The  Swiss  diet  was  mainly  Catholic  and  so  against 
her.  Nothing  held  that  diet  back  from  sending  far  larger 
armies  than  her's  into  her  territory,  except  that  some  of  the 
larger  cantons  as  Basle,  Bern  and  Schaffhausen  were  wavering 
because  they  were  slowly  becoming  Reformed.  Zurich  was 
alone.  Like  her  Lord,  she  was  treading  the  wine-press  alone. 
She  had  no  friend  in  all  the  world  at  that  time  if  the  Catholic 
armies  came  against  her.  She  was  more  fearfully  isolated  than 
ever  Luther  had  been.  She  had  not  like  Luther  some  prince 
to  steal  her  away  and  hide  her  for  a  time  in  the  Wartburg. 
Zurich  stood  alone,  like  Athanasius  in  the  fourth  century, 
"contra  mundum,"  "Athanasius  against  the  world."  Now  at 
such  a  crisis,  when  the  life  or  death  of  a  state  is  at  stake, 
every  man,  especially  in  a  republic,  becomes  a  statesman.  And 
so  Zwingli  became  a  political  leader  there.  And  especially  so 
because  the  political  situation  was  produced  by  his  religious 
reforms.  His  opponents  have  triumphantly  replied,  "Yes,  look 
at  his  death.  His  defeat  and  death  at  Cappel  were  a  judgment 
on  him  for  his  entering  into  politics."  And  they  quote  tri- 
umphantly the  saying  of  our  Lord  that  "all  they  that  take  the 
sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword."  Not  quite  so  fast,  my 
friend.  It  needs  to  be  remembered  that  our  Lord  also  said 
that  he  "came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword."  And  remember 
also  that  those  political  leagues  would  have  come  anyhow. 
They  lie  in  the  genius  of  the  Catholic  Church  which  is  one  of 
the  most  political  of  powers.  Remember  too  this  special  fact 
that  the  particular  political  policy  that  led  to  the  death  and 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ZWINGLI  127 

defeat  of  Zwingli  was  caused  by  Bern  and  not  by  Zurich. 
Zwingli  had  protested  against  it,  yes,  preached  against  it.  And 
then  Bern  left  Zurich  in  the  lurch.  So  that  his  death  was  not 
a  judgment  on  himself. 

Perhaps  this  whole  subject  of  political  activity  may  be 
illuminated  by  what  happened  the  next  century.  Has  it  ever 
occurred  to  you  that  there  would  probably  never  have  been 
that  awful  Thirty  Years'  war,  had  Zwingli's  plans  for  a  political 
federation  of  Protestants  been  carried  out.  At  least  the  Prot- 
estants would  not  have  suffered  as  they  did.  If  the  Catholic 
powers  had  known  that  a  strong  and  united  political  league  of 
Protestants  were  ready  to  meet  them  in  161 8  they  would  not 
have  entered  that  war,  out  of  which  they  came,  even  with  such 
weak  opposition  by  the  Protestants,  with  such  ignominy.  Now 
what  took  place  thus  in  that  17th  century,  Zwingli  foresaw. 
And  this  led  him  to  prepare  for  it,  first  by  forming  a  league  of 
the  Protestant  states  of  Switzerland  and  then  with  Strassburg 
and  Hesse.  It  was  simply  a  case  of  preparedness  as  we  call  it 
now.  Permit  me  also  to  carry  you  a  century  farther.  About 
1688  the  Catholics  were  ready  to  make  a  similar  onslaught  on 
the  Protestants  as  they  had  made  in  1618.  They  had  a  leader 
in  Louis  XIV.  This  is  shown  by  their  attitude.  Louis  XIV 
had  ordered  out  of  his  land  500,000  Protestants.  The  Pala- 
tinate was  overrun  by  the  French.  The  Catholic  powers  were 
determined  to  win  England  back.  But  a  little  political  event 
checked  it  all  at  the  beginning.  The  Catholics  were  defeated 
at  the  battle  of  the  Boyne.  That  put  a  quietus  on  their  preparar 
tions  all  over  Europe.  They  found  that  the  Protestants  were 
prepared  Zwingli's  political  efforts  were  justifiable.  His  policy 
was  one  of  preparedness,  about  which  we  hear  so  much  now. 

The  practical  lesson  that  can  be  drawn  from  this  peculiarity 
of  Zwingli  is  that  the  Church  has  a  sphere  in  political  life.  We 
are  not  here  referring  to  partisan  politics.  But  whenever  poli- 
tics touch  morals,  the  Church  has  a  right  to  speak  out,  to  take 
proper  measures  and  to  do  that  as  quickly  as  possible  before 
the  forces  of  evil  become  entrenched.  For  she  is  the  con- 
servator of  the  morals  of  the  nation.  What  Zwingli  did  here 
was  even  more  accentuated  by  Calvin,  who  was  the  great 
municipal  Reformer.  He  never  waited  for  some  circumlocutory 
route  as  some  do  now  by  which  to  denounce  and  crusli  evil. 


128  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

Both  Reformers  went  at  the  subject  directly.  And  though  our 
Church  here  is  not  so  directly  related  to  the  state  as  was 
theirs,  yet  its  duty  is  no  less  necessary;  for  the  question  has 
then  become  not  one  of  politics  but  of  morals.  How  the  old 
Hebrew  prophets  spoke  out  on  political  questions.  This  em- 
phasis of  separation  of  Church  and  state  forgets  also  to  note  a 
fact  that  while  Church  and  state  have  different  spheres,  they 
have  never  entirely  separated.  Each  enters  the  other's  sphere, 
the  state  in  the  case  of  legal  action :  the  Church  in  the  case  of 
moral  action.  Zwingli  and  Calvin  are  strong  examples  for  the 
Reformed  to  take  active  part  in  all  the  great  moral  and  social 
questions  of  the  day.  But  Zwingli  differed  somewhat  from 
Calvin  here.  Zwingli's  activity  was  political  as  between  states ; 
Calvin's  concerned  his  own  city.  Zwingli  stands  out  for  the 
activity  of  the  Church  in  international  relations.  He  is  there- 
fore the  prophet  and  herald  of  the  great  movement  born  in  our 
day  and  so  greatly  emphasized  by  this  awful  war,  that  the 
Golden  Rule  must  not  only  be  observed  within  nations,  but  be- 
tween them.  And  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  speak  in 
trumpet  tones  on  this  subject.  Zwingli  thus  becomes  the 
prophet  of  the  "League  of  Nations  to  enforce  Peace,"  of  which 
we  hear  so  much  now.  He  like  Erasmus  was  an  ardent  advo- 
cate of  peace  but  he  also  believed  in  thorough  preparedness  for 
war.  Zwingli  thus  assumes  a  new  importance  in  the  light  of 
present  events.  The  great  political  Reformer  was  the  harbinger 
of  these  great  international  Reforms,  in  which  the  Church  must 
nobly  bear  her  part  if  they  are  ever  to  be  carried  through  suc- 
cessfully— of  that  millennial  day 

"When  the  war  drums  beat  no  longer  and  the  battle 
flags  are  furled. 
In  the  parliament  of  man,  the  federation  of  the 
world." 

2.  The  second  contribution  that  Zwingli  made  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Reformation  was  that  he  was  the  Humanistic  or  Intel- 
lectual Reformer.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that  the  other 
Reformations  and  other  Reformers  were  not  intellectual.  They 
were.  Luther  was  able,  Melancthon,  brilliant,  Calvin,  brainiest 
of  all  and  yet  also  the  most  practical.  But  Zwingli  brought  a 
peculiar  intellectual  influence  into  the  Reformation.    This  was 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ZWINGLI  129 

due  to  his  humanism.  Luther  was  the  monk-Reformer,  Zwingli 
the  humanist-Reformer.  The  more  I  study  Luther's  life,  the 
more  I  realize  the  limitations  placed  imposed  on  him  by  his  early 
monkhood  and  the  more  I  realize  the  broader,  clearer  spirit  of 
Zwingli. 

For  Zwingli  gained  three  great  peculiarities  from  human- 
ism. The  first  was  as  to  the  method  of  thought, — thoroughness. 
Humanism  taught  that  it  was  necessary  to  go  back  to  the 
sources  and  so  went  back  to  the  Bible.  The  second  was  as  to 
the  expression  of  thought.  Humanism  taught  clearness  of  ex- 
pression over  against  the  verbosity  of  language  due  to  the  hair- 
splittings of  the  scholastic  theology.  Perhaps  a  third  ought 
also  be  added,  namely,  breadth  of  sympathy.  Zwingli  was  the 
broadest  of  the  Reformers.  All  this  gave  an  intellectual  aspect 
to  the  Zwinglian  Reformation,  over  against  the  early  Lutheran. 

Now  this  prominence  of  the  intellect  was  greatly  needed  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation.  For  the  Romanism  of  the  Middle 
Ages  had  checked,  yes,  prostituted,  the  intellect.  The  Renais- 
sance and  humanism  had  been  but  the  bursting  of  the  coffin  in 
which  the  Middle  Ages  had  been  trying  to  entomb  the  intellect. 
The  Catholic  Church  by  its  doctrine  of  "fides  implicita"  (im- 
plicit faith)  had  served  notice  on  the  intellect  that  the  Church 
could  get  along  without  it.  And  that  Church  by  its  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  had  virtually  mocked  at  the  intellect,  by 
requiring  it  to  believe  in  the  Lord's  Supper  what  three  of  our 
senses  said  was  not  so.  It  was  time  that  the  intellect  should 
come  to  its  own  again.  Humanism  came  to  awaken  it.  And 
the  Reformed  Church  then  came  to  properly  safeguard  it  in  its 
rights.  And  so  humanism  and  Zwingli  made  the  intellect  prom- 
inent. The  result  was  that  in  that  Reformation  age,  the  Re- 
formed emphasized  education  and  everywhere  founded  uni- 
versities and  schools,  more  so  in  the  Reformation  than  the 
Lutherans.  I  need  but  to  refer  to  Herborn,  Marburg  and  the 
three  Dutch  universities  and  the  schools  in  France  and  Hun- 
gary. The  Lutherans  have  later  been  catching  up  until  they  too 
have  a  splendid  set  of  institutions. 

But  our  Lutheran  brethren,  just  because  Zwingli  gave  the 
intellect  its  rights,  have  been  charging  us  with  rationalism.  Our 
reply  is  that  we  are  rational  but  not  rationalistic.  Zwingli  was 
as  orthodox  as  Luther  on  the  great  fundamentals  of  faith  or 


130  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

they  never  would  have  agreed  as  they  did  on  all  the  15  Articles 
at  Marburg  except  the  one  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Re- 
formed, like  the  Lutherans,  grant  much  to  faith,  yet  they 
believe  that  the  rights  of  the  reason  must  be  respected.  Their 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  more  rational.  They  believe 
as  Scripture  says  that  we  must  ever  be  ready  to  give  a  reason 
for  the  hope  that  is  within  us.  Reason  must  never  be  hidden 
by  mysticism,  as  was  done  by  Luther  at  Marburg  when  the 
only  answer  he  was  able  to  give  to  Zwingli's  argument  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  to  point  to  the  words  "This  is  my  body" 
written  in  chalk  on  the  table.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  em- 
phasized the  mystical  especially  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  we, 
the  rational.  And  both  should  be  combined  and  neither  for- 
gotten. 

But  while  Zwingli  made  his  important  contribution  of 
intellectualism  to  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  so  needed  then 
amid  the  superstitions  of  Rome,  this  intellectualism  must  never 
be  placed  over  against  the  Bible  and  revelation  as  Rationalism 
does.  To  do  so  is  to  depart  from  the  spirit  of  Zwingli.  One 
of  the  most  impressive  and  pathetic  scenes  occurred  just  a 
century  ago  at  Zurich  when,  in  the  300th  Anniversary  of  the 
Reformation,  old  Antistes  Hess,  the  head  of  the  Church,  over 
eighty  years  of  age  and  tottering  over  the  grave,  seemed  to 
renew  his  youth  as  he  preached  the  Anniversary  sermon  and 
as  Zwingli's  successor  declared  that  he  was  a  Biblicist  and 
not  a  rationalist  and  his  successors  in  the*  Church  should  be 
like  him. 

3.  I  have  time  to  refer  to  but  one  more  contribution  that 
Zwingli  made  to  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation.  And  this  has 
not  been  emphasized  enough  by  the  German  Church  historians 
because  they  have  been  so  prevailingly  Lutheran.  They  have 
looked  at  everything  through  Lutheran  eyes.  It  is  strange  how 
Church  historians  will  follow  fads.  And  if  one  of  them  makes 
a  mistake,  those  who  come  after  him  are  apt  to  follow  him 
blindly  like  sheep.  For  instance,  Prof.  Phillip  Schafif,  D.D., 
brought  over  with  him  from  Germany  the  idea  that  there  were 
two  principles  in  the  Reformation,  the  material  principle  which 
was  justification  by  faith,  and  the  formal  which  was  the  Scrip- 
tures. Is  it  not  time  that  we  correct  this  old  worn-out,  hind- 
foremost   statement?     We,    with    our   practical   minds   today, 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ZWINGLI  131 

would  put  it  the  other  way.  It  is  the  Bible  that  gives  us  the 
material,  and  justification  is  the  form  by  which  we  work  up  that 
rnaterial.  If  justification  is  the  material  principle  as  they  say, 
where  does  it  get  its  material  from,  if  not  from  the  Bible?  And 
where  would  the  Bible  get  its  formal  principle,  if  justification 
were,  as  they  say,  the  material;  for  there  is  little  of  justifica- 
tion in  the  Bible  compared  with  other  doctrines. 

Well,  take  another  fad  of  Church  history.  The  great  doc- 
trine of  the  Reformation  has  been  stated  to  be  justification  by 
faith.  So  it  was  for  the  Lutherans.  But  German  Church  his- 
torians (most  of  them  Lutheran )  have  therefore  presumed  that 
that  was  true  of  the  rest  of  the  Reformation.  This  view  has 
blinded  their  vision  so  that  they  have  not  recognized  that  Zvvingli 
approached  Protestantism  from  a  different  perspective.  It  is 
true,  he  believed  in  justification  by  faith.  But  it  does  not  bulk 
so  largely  in  his  works.  What  was  his  peculiarity  as  a  Re- 
former? Well,  he  held  as  did  Luther  to  the  Authority  of  Scrip- 
ture. So  that  was  not  peculiar  to  him.  But  then  he  goes  on  to 
say  that  he  got  from  his  great  teacher,  Prof.  Thomas  Wytten- 
bach,  at  Basle,  another  fundamental  thought.  It  was  the  Ran- 
som of  Christ.  He  states  it  in  different  ways,  but  it  is  always 
the  same  doctrine.  "Christ  is  the  sole  Mediator,  and  therefore 
the  Virgin  and  the  saints  are  not  needed."  Or  he  states  in  that 
Christ  died  "once  for  all."  But  it  is  always  the  same  doctrine, — 
Christ's  finished  work.  Thus  Bullinger  in  his  history  says,  "He 
preached  the  Gospel  with  all  diligence  also  at  Einsedeln  and 
especially  taught  that  Christ  was  the  only  Mediator  and  that 
Mary  the  Virgin  and  Mother  of  God  should  not  be  prayed  to 
and  worshipped."  The  third  great  peculiarity  of  Zwingli  was 
that  he  stands  out  as  the  Redemptive  Reformer. 

Zwingli  therefore  had  a  different  doctrine  from  Luther 
and  yet  not  so  different.  These  two  doctrines  of  atonement  and 
justification  are  related  as  indeed  are  all  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible.  For  there  may  be  said  to  be  three  types  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification:  one,  the  metaphysical,  which  puts  the  justifica- 
tion back  in  the  mind  of  God  through  election,  the  second,  which 
is  redemptive,  placed  it  at  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  the  third, 
which  was  experimental,  placed  it  in  connection  with  faith  and 
works  at  conversion.  Now  the  old  Calvinists  emphasized  the 
first,  and  the  Lutherans,  the  last.    But  Zwingli  emphasized  the 


132  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

second.  The  redemptive  element  is  present  with  him  both  in 
justification  and  in  everything  else.  In  fact  as  these  doctrines 
are  related,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  this  doctrine  of 
justification  Zwingli  went  deeper  than  Luther.  He  went  down 
to  the  root  of  it,  which  was  the  atonement,  while  Luther  looked 
only  at  the  result — what  we  ordinarily  mean  by  justification. 
For  you  can't  have  justification  without  the  atonement,  but  you 
can  have  the  atonement  without  justification.  Yet  while  they 
are  alike  they  are  different.  Of  the  two  Christ's  atonement  is 
the  greater  doctrine. 

And  so  the  third  great  contribution  that  Zwingli  made  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  was  the  great  Redemptive  element. 
It  was  the  emphasis  on  Christ's  death.  And  it  was  a  great 
contribution  then,  for  the  Romish  Church  had  made  more  of 
the  judgment  day  than  of  Calvary,  and  more  of  the  crucifix 
than  of  the  Crucified. 

So  as  this  Reformation  anniversary  comes  again,  let  us 
preach  again  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  atonement.  Some  of  you 
perhaps  do  not  believe  it  in  the  traditional  sense  that  all  be- 
lieved it  in  the  early  Reformation  and  as  Zwingli  did,  though 
to  me  his  substitutionary  atonement  is  the  most  precious  of  all 
comforts.  But  whether  you  believe  it  or  not,  historically  that  is 
how  he  began  his  Reformation.  Some  find  the  modern  socio- 
logical altruistic  explanation  satisfactory, — that  Christ's  re- 
demption is  only  sympathetic.  Well  preach  it  that  way  if  you 
can't  the  other  way.  I  prefer  the  old  substitutionary  atonement. 
But  whatever  you  do,  preach  the  atonement  as  one  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  For  that  doctrine  of  infinite 
sympathy  and  love  is  the  magnet  that  will  draw  the  world  to 
Christ.  O  that  we  might  preach  it  with  new  power  this  Refor- 
mation year. 

When  time  seems  short  and  death  is  near. 

And  I  am  pres't  by  doubt  and  fear, 

And  sins,  an  overflowing  tide. 

Assail  my  peace  on  every  side, 

This  thought  my  refuge  still  shall  be, 

I  know  my  Savior  died  for  me. 

His  name  is  Jesus,  and  he  died 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ZWINGU  133 

For  guilty  sinners  crucified; 
Content  to  die  that  he  might  win 
Their  ransom  from  the  death  of  sin, 
No  sinner  worse  than  I  can  be, 
Therefore  I  know  he  died  for  me. 

If  grace  were  bought,  I  could  not  buy ; 
If  grace  were  coined,  no  wealth  have  I ; 
By  grace  alone  I  draw  my  breath. 
Held  up  from  everlasting  death. 
Yet  since  I  know  that  grace  is  free, 
I  know  my  Savior  died  for  me. 

I  read  God's  holy  word  and  find 

Great  truths  that  far  transcend  my  mind, 

And  little  do  I  know  beside 

Of  thoughts  so  high,  so  deep  and  wide; 

This  is  my  best  theology, 

I  know  my  Savior  died  for  me. 

My  faith  is  weak,  but  'tis  thy  gift; 
Thou  canst  my  helpless  soul  uplift, 
And  say,  "Thy  bonds  of  death  are  riven, 
Thy  sins  by  me  are  all  forgiven, 
And  thou  shalt  live  from  guilt  set  free. 
For  I,  thy  Savior,  died  for  thee." 

— Rev.  Dr.  Bethune. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED  SIDE  OF  THE  REEORMATION 
TO  THE  SPIRIT  OF  PROTESTANTISM. 

We  have  just  spoken  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Reformation  in 
the  last  chapter.  But  there  is  also  a  Spirit  of  Protestantism. 
Between  these  two  there  is  this  difference.  The  spirit  of  the 
Reformation  was  the  spirit  of  the  sixteenth  century;  The  spirit 
of  Protestantism  is  larger,  for  it  takes  in  also  the  spirit  of  the 
three  centuries  since  the  Reformation.  It  rnay  be  called  the 
twentieth  century  spirit.  Take  as  an  illustration  of  the  differ- 
ence, the  growth  of  republics.  Calvin  in  the  Reformation  at 
Geneva  had  a  republic  but  it  >vas  an  aristocratic  one,  an  oli- 
garchy. But  the  last  three  centuries  have  developed  out  of  that 
great  republics  that  are  democracies.  The  spirit  of  Protestant- 
ism is  therefore  larger  than  that  of  the  Reformation.  And  this 
spirit  of  Protestantism  needs  to  be  also  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  anniversary  and  that  Very  carefully. 

Each  part  of  the  Reformation  gave  its  own  peculiar  con- 
tribution to  Protestantism.  AH  Protestants  agreed  on  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Bible  and  the  priesthood  of  all  believers.  The 
Lutherans  emphasized  justification  by  faith,  the  Reformed, 
the  finished  atonement  of  Christ.  The  Anabaptists  gave  their 
contribution  in  their  emphasis  on  Church  discipline  and  per- 
sonal independence.  Both  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 
emphasized  education  and  produced  a  better  idea  of  exegesis  of 
Scripture  than  the  Catholics. 

Turning  from  these  general  dififerent  contributions  to  the 
spirit  of  Protestantism,  we  come  to  speak  of  the  special  con- 
tribution of  the  Reformed.     And  we  mention 

I,  Liberty.  Zwingli  and  Calvin  are  both  very  interesting 
characters  to  Americans  because  like  us  they  were  citizens  of  a 
republic.  Anabaptism  also  emphasized  liberty  but  it  never  re- 
sulted in  permanent  results,  due  to  its  extreme  individualism. 
But  the  Reformed  Church  built  up,  according  to  historians  as 
Ranke  and   Motley,  great  republics   in   Switzerland  and   the 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED    135 

United  States  and  monarchies  that  are  virtually  republics  as 
England  and  Holland.  Even  France,  which  so  cruelly  cast  out 
the  Calvinists  at  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (1685), 
has  been  compelled  to  accept  Calvin's  form  of  civil  government 
and  become  a  republic.  It  was  the  Genevan  Bible  that  pro- 
duced the  Commonwealth  in  England.  Civil  and  religious 
liberty  have  followed  in  the  wake  of  Calvinism.  Now  Luther- 
anism  has  no  such  history  to  show.  Her  lands,  Germany  and 
Scandinavia,  have  produced  no  republics,  although  in  this 
country  the  Lutherans  have  become  strong  adherents  to  our 
principles  of  liberty. 

Now  the  cause  of  all  this  is  not  far  to  seek.  There  has 
always  been  an  intimate  relation  between  the  government  of 
the  Church  and  that  of  the  state.  The  Church  is  apt  to  reflect 
the  government  of  the  state  and  vice  versa.  Calvinistic  Church 
government  was  more  democratic  than  Lutheranism.  Thus  in 
the  Lutheran  Church,  the  prince  was  the  head  of  the  Church. 
That  prince  appointed  consistories  to  rule  the  Church.  These 
consistories  were  composed  of  ministers  and  laymen,  but  they 
held  office  only  at  the  will  of  the  prince.  The  prince  also 
appointed  superintendents.  The  appointment  and  the  authority 
given  to  these  came  from  the  prince  and  not  from  the  Church. 
But  it  was  not  so  with  the  Reformed.  Here  the  Church  gave 
the  authority.  The  people  elected  their  pastors,  and  the  con- 
gregations elected  their  elders  and  deacons.  Each  congregation 
was  in  itself  a  virtual  republic.  The  Reformed,  having  thus 
learned  to  rule  the  Church,  were  able  to  rule  the  state,  for  they 
had  learned  in  the  congregation  how  to  do  it.  King  James  I 
of  England  was  right  when  he  said  that  "Royalty  and  presby- 
tery go  not  well  together."  He  scented  the  battle  from  afar. 
The  Reformed  Church  produced  a  class  of  people  who  were 
trained  to  rule  themselves.  They  therefore  held  that  they  could 
call  even  king  and  rulers  to  account,  if  they  were  not  ruling 
rightly  and  in  the  fear  of  God.  This  overthrew  ^ny  "divine 
right  of  kings."  It  meant  "the  divine  right  of  the  people"  to 
rule.  Indeed  they  so  learned  to  rule  that  they  did  not  abso- 
lutely need  kings  and  princes  at  all.  And  thus  out  of  this 
republic  in  the  congregation  grew  up  the  great  national  re- 
publics. 

Now  this  was  a  remarkable  and  unexpected  peculiarity 


136  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

of  the  Reformed.  Calvin,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly  it  is  not 
the  place  here  to  discuss,  has  been  greatly  vilified  for  the  exe- 
cution of  Servetus.  And  yet  it  was  Calvin's  successors  who 
won  for  the  world  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Notice  another 
unexpected  and  remarkable  result.  Calvinism  has  been  declared 
to  be  the  grave  of  man's  free  will  because  of  its  doctrine  of 
election.  And  yet  it  was  this  very  doctrine  of  election  that 
has  given  the  world  the  greatest  number  of  men  of  free  wills 
for  producing  liberty. 

There  is  a  twilight  dawning  on  the  world, 
The  herald  of  a  full  and  perfect  day, 

When  liberty's  wide  flag  shall  be  unfurled, 
And  kings  shall  bow  to  her  superior  sway. 

How  priceless  the  boon  of  liberty  is,  it  is  impossible  to 
describe.  It  is  the  most  colossal,  yes,  celestial,  of  the  gifts  to 
man.  And  in  the  making  of  that  liberty,  the  Reformed 
Churches  have  made  the  largest  contribution  and  for  it  they 
can  justly  be  proud. 

2.  The  second  great  contribution  of  the  Reformed  to  the 
spirit  of  Protestantism  has  been  its  Ethics.  That  Protestantism 
has  a  peculiar  ethical  quality  and  that  its  ethics  are  higher  than 
Catholicism  needs  no  proof  because  self-evident.  But  what 
gave  to  Protestantism  its  peculiar  ethical  quality?  It  was 
undoubtedly  Calvinism.  Now  in  saying  this  we  do  not  wish  to 
discredit  the  ethics  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  For  she  too  has 
taught  ethics  and  her  ethics  were  higher  and  brighter  than  those 
of  the  Catholics.  But  she  has  not  emphasized  ethics  as  strongly 
as  the  Reformed.  The  ethics  of  Protestantism  have  come 
mainly  out  of  the  Reformed. 

To  prove  this  we  will  give  several  historical  examples.  In 
the  Reformation,  why  was  it  that  the  Hussites,  who  originally 
fraternized  with  Luther  and  the  Lutherans,  left  them  and  went 
over  to  the  Reformed  side  in  the  later  Reformation?  It  was 
because  Luther  refused  to  introduce  Church  discipline,  which 
with  them  was  a  matter  of  conscience.  They  therefore  com- 
plained of  the  laxity  of  discipHne  in  both  the  Churches  and 
universities  of  the  Lutherans.  Now  on  the  other  side  we  see 
John  Calvin  as  the  great  ethical  Reformer  of  the  Reformation. 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED    137 

His  reforms  at  Geneva  were  undoubtedly  severe  but  they  made 
Geneva  the  "model  city"  of  that  age.  Even  Prof.  Andrea,  of 
Tubingen,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  was 
compelled  to  bear  witness  when  on  a  visit  to  Geneva,  that 
Lutheranism  had  no  such  city  as  that. 

And  what  occurred  in  the  Reformation  has  been  the  pecul- 
iarity of  the  Reformed  ever  since.  Their  ethical  standards 
were  higher.  The  Lutherans  also  taught  ethics,  but  Prof. 
Schweitzer  has  proved  in  his  able  articles  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken  many  years  ago,  that  as  far  as  ethics  was  concerned, 
Protestantism  had  to  depend  mainly  on  the  Reformed.  They 
might  be  called  Puritans  and  be  laughed  at  by  the  world  for 
their  narrowness  and  bigotry,  but  as  Puritans  they  were  pure — 
pure  in  life.  Take  as  an  example  the  city  of  Bremen  in  northern 
Germany.  Bremen  became  Reformed  in  the  later  Reformation. 
All  around  her  except  on  the  north,  where  was  the  sea,  were 
Lutheran  lands.  But  under  the  regulations  due  to  Reformed 
influence  in  the  city,  the  morals  of  Bremen  were  higher  than 
those  of  the  surrounding  countries.  And  this  was  true  up  to 
the  days  of  Church  Union  a  centur)'  ago.  Other  examples 
might  be  given.  But  these  are  enough  to  show  that  the  spirit 
of  Protestantism  that  is  ethical  has  come  mainly  out  of  the 
Reformed  Church.  The  great  moral  uplift  of  the  world  that 
came  through  Protestantism  was  mainly  due  to  the  Reformed. 

And  today  it  is  this  ethical  chord  vibrating  in  Protestant- 
ism that  needs  to  be  recognized  and  heard.  In  these  days  when 
altruism  and  service — those  higher  ethical  ideals  in  morality — 
are  being  stressed,  where  do  these  elements  come  from  ?  They 
are  here  because  of  the  Reformed.  And  the  Reformed  should 
be  especially  active  in  every  department  of  reform,  for  they  are 
but  carrying  out  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  in  doing  so.  In 
this  day  when  men  are  demanding  that  the  moral  law  and  the 
golden  rule  be  applied  not  only  to  city,  state  and  nation  but  also 
to  international  relations,  it  is  for  the  Calvinists  to  rise  up  and 
support  these  movements,  for  they  come  out  of  their  fathers. 

3.  A  third  contribution  that  the  Reformed  have  made  to  the 
spirit  of  Protestantism  has  been  Pietism.  This  is  an  empliasis 
on  experimental  religion  and  tends  to  produce  the  great  prac- 
tical activities  of  the  Church.  For  wherever  there  is  pietism, 
there  missions  and  charities  abound.     The  pietism  of  Protes- 


138  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

tantism  came  out  of  the  Reformed  Church.  But  we  suppose 
we  will  be  at  once  challenged  by  the  Lutherans,  who  at  once 
declare  that  the  great  Pietist  of  Germany  was  a  Lutheran, 
Spener.  But  we  place  opposite  German  pietism  as  equally  im- 
portant in  history  the  Puritanism  of  Enghnd,  for  Puritanism 
was  at  heart  pietism.  And  we  add  to  that  the  Puritanism  of 
Holland,  What  great  pietists  they  had  in  Holland  in  Prof. 
Voet  and  Lodenstein.  All  the  pietists  in  the  world  do  not 
come  out  of  Germany.  Nor  was  Spener's  pietism  the  only  piet- 
ism that  was  in  Germany,  for  there  was  also  a  Reformed  pietism 
there.  There  is  also  such  a  thing  as  a  world-wide  pietism,  and 
in  it  the  Reformed  played  the  larger  part.  But  let  us  pause  a 
moment.  Where  did  Spener  get  his  pietism?  He  got  it  from 
the  Refornied.  It  was  the  preaching  of  Labadie,  the  eloquent 
preacher  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Geneva  and  the  successor 
of  Calvin,  that  led  Spener  to  become  a  pietist.  When  Spener 
heard  Labadie  at  Geneva,  Labadie  was  not  yet  a  separatist. 
He  was  a  pietist  within  the  Church,  because  Calvin  had  em- 
phasized that,  and  Calvin  had  gotten  it  from  Zwingli  and  his 
prophesyings  at  Zurich.  And  where  for  instance  did  Spener 
get  his  idea  of  prayer-meetings  that  he  first  introduced  into 
Frankford?  From  the  Reformed,  who  had  always  had  the 
"ecclesiola  in  ecclesia"  in  the  Church.  And  it  was  those  prayer- 
meetings  that  gave  permanence  to  Lutheran  pietism.  Why, 
Lutheran  pietism  would  have  been  crushed  in  Germany  but  for 
the  Reformed,  who  saved  it  to  the  Lutherans.  When  Spener 
was  driven  out  of  Saxony  because  of  the  persecutions  of  the 
orthodox  Lutherans,  where  could  he  have  gone,  had  not  a 
Reformed  prince,  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  received  him 
into  his  realm.  Yes,  the  Elector  did  more.  He  founded  for  him 
and  his  school  of  Lutherans  a  university,  the  university  of 
Halle,  where  they  might  be  able  to  perpetuate  themselves. 
Lutheran  pietism  in  Germany  owes  its  origin  and  permanence 
to  the  Reformed.  It  really  looks  as  if  the  remark  of  Rev. 
H.  J.  Ruetenik,  D.D.,  made  to  the  writer  many  years  ago  is 
true.  "Pietism,"  he  said,  "is  germane  to  the  Reformed  Church 
but  not  to  the  Lutheran,  to  which  it  came,  from  the  outside, — 
from  the  Reformed."  Prof.  Ebrard  also  says  the  same :  "In 
the  Lutheran  Church,  there  lay  no  new  birth  at  the  basis  of 
theology  as  there  did  in  the  Reformed,  which  led  to  personal 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED    139 

experience."  Iken  says:  "We  must  consider  pietism  as  an 
integral  part  of  Reformed  Church  history."  The  pietists  were 
not  a  party  in  the  Reformed  Church  as  in  the  Lutheran  but  a 
part  of  her  inmost  life  and  history. 

Both  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  emphasize  the 
mystical.  But  with  the  Lutherans  it  was  the  mystical  in  the 
sacrament,  with  the  Reformed  the  mystical  in  every  relation 
of  life.  Perhaps  the  best  illustration  of  pietism  in  the  Reformed 
Church  is  found  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  its  first  answer, 
"What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  life  and  death?  That  I  with 
body  and  soul  am  not  my  own  but  belong  to  my  faithful 
Savior  Jesus  Christ."  Its  emphasis  on  personal  experience  is" 
the  finest  flower  in  the  garden  of  religious  instruction  in  the 
Church.  Therefore  the  richness  of  personal  experience,  which 
is  so  prominent  a  feature  of  Protestantism  over  against  the 
mechanical  and  ceremonial  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is  due 
mainly  to  the  Reformed. 

And  when  we  turn  to  the  fruits  of  pietism  in  the  missions 
and  charities  of  the  Church,  the  same  thing  is  true.  Luther- 
anism  has  done  much  for  missions  and  has  had  some  great  mis- 
sionaries, but  the  Reformed  have  done  more.  The  Reformed 
sent  out  the  first  missionaries  as  to  Brazil  in  1557.  And  the 
Reformed  entered  the  field  of  world-missions  before  the 
Lutherans.  How  they  labored  amid  great  difficulties  in  the 
East  Indies  in  the  seventeenth  century  when  the  Lutheran 
Church  rejected  missions  so  that  Baron  Von  Welz  had  to  go 
himself  to  South  America  (as  no  one  else  would  go)  and  die 
for  missions.  The  Lutheran  Church,  it  is  true,  woke  up  in  the 
eighteenth  century  and  is  now  doing  a  great  work.  And  as  to 
other  charities,  we  suppose  no  land  is  as  full  of  them  as  Re- 
formed Holland— the  product  of  the  Church.  In  the  Dutch 
Churches  the  first  of  the  three  collections  taken  at  each  service 
always  goes  to  the  poor.  As  a  result  there  are  more  charities  in 
Holland  than  there  are  poor  to  fill  them.  But  further  proof 
is  unnecessary,  for  in  Germany  it  is  a  common  saying  that  the 
Lutherans  emphasize  the  passive  and  the  Reformed  emphasize 
the  active. 

And  if  we  were  to  do  as  they  do  in  Germany,  count  all 
Protestants  who  are  not  Lutheran  as  Reformed,  the  balance 
would  be  still  heavier  on  the  side  of  the  Reformed.    For  there 


I40  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

they  throw  the  Methodists,  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  etc., 
in  with  the  Reformed.  And  there  is  a  truth  in  this.  These 
other  denominations  are  the  outgrowth  directly  or  indirectly 
of  the  Reformed.  Congregationalism  certainly  came  out  of 
English  Puritanism.  Methodism  is,  for  it  came  out  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  which  in  the  Reformation  had  for  its  name 
the  "Reformed  Church  of  England,"  and  whose  priests  today 
take  oath  to  the  Reformed  Church  of  England.  And  as  for 
the  Baptists,  they  claim  to  come  from  the  Anabaptists  of  the 
Reformation,  but  the  relation  is  largely  in  the  similarity  of  the 
names,  Anabaptist  and  Baptist.  For  historically  the  first  Bap- 
tist congregation  came  out  of  the  Congregationalists  in  Britain 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  according  to  Prof.  Whitsitt,  late 
professor  of  the  Baptist  Church.  If  we  therefore  follow  the 
German  method  and  count  all  these  as  Reformed,  it  overweighs 
the  Lutherans  very  greatly.  The  great  religious  activity  of  our 
present  Protestant  Church  has  undoubtedly  come  largely  from 
the  Reformed. 

4.  Education.  The  Reformed  were  always  the  leaders  in 
Education.  Here  too  the  Lutheran  Church  has  a  splendid 
record.  Protestantism  always  stands  for  the  school  as  well 
as  the  Church,  and  in  these  educational  movements  the  Re- 
formed have  had  a  large  share.  In  the  Reformation  she 
founded  the  university  of  Herborn  in  Germany,  three  universi- 
ties in  Holland  led  by  Leyden,  the  Carolinum  at  Zurich  and  the 
theological  schools  at  Bern,  Geneva  and  Lausanne,  out  of 
which  grew  the  present  universities.  In  France  and  Hungary 
she  founded  celebrated  schools  as  Sedan  and  Debreczin.  And 
the  Reformed  have  ever  kept  in  the  van  of  education.  And 
they  not  merely  founded  universities  for  the  rich ;  but  it  was  a 
Reformed  pedagogue,  Pestalozzi,  who  made  education  possible 
for  all,  even  the  poor;  and  thus  laid  the  foundation  for  our 
modern  universal  education.  They  were  also  leaders  in  the 
founding  of  schools  for  girls.  Thus  the  Reformed  Church  has 
had  an  enviable  record  in  this  greatest  of  all  movements  next 
to  the  Church. 

5.  Capitalism.  A  recent  and  interesting  attempt  has 
been  made  in  Germany  by  Prof.  Max  Weber,  of  Heidelberg 
university,  to  show  that  capitalism  also  came  from  Calvinism. 
Prof.  Weber's  views  have  been  finelv  summarized  in  the  Con- 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED    141 

temporary  Review  for  June  and  July,  1910,  by  Prof.  Forsyth, 
from  which  I  quote  freely. 

"By  capitalism  is  not  meant  what  we  today  mean  by  the 
capitalist  over  against  labor.  But  capitalism  means  the  system 
of  the  growth  and  the  use  of  capital  that  has  made  the  modern 
world." 

We  must  confess  that  when  we  first  heard  the  proposition 
advanced  that  capitalism  was  the  product  of  Calvinism,  we 
shook  our  heads.  Calvinism  has  already  had  enough  sins 
charged  to  its  account  without  having  any  more  added.  But 
we  were  somewhat  relieved  when  we  found  that  capitalism  and 
not  the  modern  capitalist  was  meant.  We  were  somewhat  sur- 
prised at  the  source  of  this  suggestion,  for  it  is  not  usual  for  an 
economist  to  praise  a  theologian  or  for  the  land  of  Luther  to 
laud  Calvin.  But  the  more  we  considered  it,  the  more  we  be- 
lieved that  there  was  a  great  truth  in  it.  Calvinism,  which  was 
aiming  to  be  a  religious  movement,  has  become  a  great  econo- 
mic force.  Just  as  modern  missions,  intended  to  be  only  spirit- 
ual, has  become  a  mighty  world-wide  sociological  uplift,  so  it 
has  been  with  Calvinism.  And  if  Calvinism  has  produced 
liberty  as  we  have  seen,  why  should  it  not  produce  as  great  a 
boon  in  world-wide  commercial  supremacy? 

For  the  facts  of  history  seem  to  bear  out  the  proposition 
of  Prof.  Weber.  At  and  after  the  Reformation,  when  the 
Catholics  drove  out  the  Reformed,  the  latter  found  refuge  in 
England,  Holland,  Switzerland  and  Brandenburg,  now  Prussia. 
They  were  largely  of  the  great  middle  class  and  were  mainly 
artisans.  Great  trades  were  built  up  by  them  in  these  lands. 
France  found  that  she  had  impoverished  herself  to  build  up 
the  nations  that  were  her  enemies.  The  countries  that  received 
these  refugees  prospered  greatly.  First  Holland  captured  the 
commerce,  and  then  England.  Prussia  owes  her  present  posi- 
tion at  the  head  of  Germany  largely  to  the  coming  of  these 
refugees.  Antwerp  took  the  trade  from  the  French  ports. 
Spanish  commerce  on  the  other  hand  went  down  and  decayed. 
Thus  these  refugees  developed  their  business  until,  as  Prof. 
Weber  says,  we  have  the  mighty  world  movement  of  com- 
mercialism. For  Calvinism  gave  that  liberty  that  enabled  capi- 
tal and  industry  to  develope  and  it  also  gave  it  the  protection 
it  needed  to  advance.    Hence  the  genius  of  capitalism  with  its 


142  THE  REFORMED  REFORMATION 

free  initiative  and  bold  enterprise  arose. 

Prof.  Weber  also  suggests  a  reason  why  all  this  grew  out 
of  the  Reformed.    He  says  : 

"It  is  wrong  to  identify  the  genius  of  capitalism  with  the 
trades  of  capitalists.  The  genius  of  capitalism  is  not  mere 
acquisition  or  greed, — the  passion  of  getting  and  keeping.  It 
has  a  normal  power.  It  is  the  passion  of  production  and  enter- 
prise— the  passion  of  work  that  spends  little  on  itself  but 
delights  to  get  at  nature  and  use  it  for  God.  Calvinism  trans- 
figured work.  It  changed  the  mediaeval  idea  that  work  was 
a  necessary  evil  and  a  mere  means  of  living  and  made  it  the 
engine  of  God's  glory  in  the  world.  Our  calling  was  not  as 
with  Luther,  a  sphere  of  modest  accommodation  to  our  sta- 
tion (Lutheranism),  nor  on  the  other  hand  a  means  of  getting 
on  (Secularism),  but  it  was  a  problem  to  be  solved,  a  book 
to  be  opened,  an  opportunity  of  doing  something  on  an  eternal 
scale  with  spirit  and  zest  to  the  glory  of  God.  It  had  an 
inward  nisus  that  Lutheranism  had  not.  Its  ideal  was  not 
that  of  pious  repose,  but  a  life  energy.  Accept  the  evil  situa- 
tion, said  Luther,  may  God  mend  all.  Nay,  said  Calvin,  but 
we  must  help  him  to  mend  all.  Life's  work  then  becomes  not 
a  poor  broken  fragment,  but  the  confident  expression  of  an 
elect  destiny.  Our  vocation  is  not  an  acquiescence  but  a 
conquest.  Faith  is  not  mere  reliance  but  an  energy.  The 
leading  idea  of  Calvinism  is  not  compliance  but  action, — all 
under  obedience  to  God.  It  not  merely  changed  the  heart  of 
the  world  but  the  face  of  it.  Put  into  the  language  of  econom- 
ics, this  was  ethical  while  it  accumulated  wealth.  It  opposed 
luxury  and  the  careless  enjoyment  of  what  it  owned.  It  cared 
more  for  work  than  enjoyment.  It  recognized  stewardship 
rather  than  ownership.  It  discouraged  consumption  and  de- 
veloped production.  It  released  production  from  the  fetters 
of  a  tradionalist  ethic  or  an  egotistic  enjoyment,  especially 
in  the  matter  of  interest  on  money  where  Calvin  took  a  posi- 
tion so  enlightened  compared  with  Luther's  traditional  ethics. 
It  was  the  ethic  of  a  large  and  sacred  utilitarianism." 

He  thus  speaks  beautifully  of  the  ethical  character  so 
common  to  all  of  Calvin's  influence — even  in  money-getting. 
He  says: 

"Calvin's  ethics  branded  the  mere  passion  of  possession 
as  covetousness  and  mammonism.  The  spring  of  industry  was 
the  Christian  passion  of  energy  and  world-mastery  for  the 
enhancement  of  the  Christian  passion.  God's  kingdom  and 
glory.    Its  final  regard  was  to  the  will  of  God." 

But  this  great  economist  closes  with  a  warning.     He  says : 


THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  THE  REFORMED    143 

"We  come  to  the  end  of  our  age.  We  face  another  than 
a  stage  of  capitaHsm.  CapitaHsm  has  done  its  great  and  indis- 
pensable work  in  leading  the  social  evolution.  Capitalism  now 
announces  its  own  end  in  becoming  dethroned  in  a  plutocracy. 
And  in  becoming  a  plutocracy  it  has  thrown  aside  the  control 
of  religion  and  warned  it  off  of  the  economic  sphere.  Does 
labor  promise  to  allow  it  a  place  any  more  effective?  That  is 
hard  to  answer.  But  no  one  will  deny  that  alongside  the  ele- 
ment of  labor  in  the  economic  sphere,  there  has  arisen  another 
principle  in  the  religious, — the  passion  for  souls, — a  new 
respect  for  manhood  in  the  sense  of  moral  personality.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Calvinistic  ethic  approached  the  world  with 
a  belief  in  its  resources,  in  their  destiny  to  be  developed  for 
the  glory  of  God  and  in  the  duty  of  the  elect  above  all  others 
so  to  use  them.  This  gave  a  tremendous  religious  impulse  to 
the  exploitation  of  the  world  by  the  most  powerful  characters." 

Prof.  Weber  in  all  this  has  given  to  us  a  very  interesting 
discovery  in  history.  His  statements  of  the  way  in  which  Cal- 
vinism puts  morals  into  business  is  unique,  but  true.  We  re- 
member the  couplet  that  has  ever  been  associated  with  the 
Huguenots  as  describing  their  characteristics : 

"Self-reverence,  self-knowledge,  self-control. 
These  alone  lead  to  sovereign  power." 

We  also  remember  the  illustration  that  is  told  of  one  of  the 
noble  family  of  Prussia  after  the  Huguenot  refugees  had 
come  there.  The  Elector  of  Brandenburg  one  day  surprised 
his  wife,  the  beautiful  Electress  Louisa  Henrietta,  in  the  act 
of  giving  some  of  the  crown  jewels  into  the  hands  of  a  stranger. 
In  astonishment  he  asked  her  who  the  man  was.  She  replied, 
"I  do  not  know  his  name,  but  I  know  he  is  a  Huguenot."  That 
was  enough.  A  Huguenot's  word  was  as  good  as  a  bond.  And 
there  were  no  better  specimens  of  Calvinism  than  those  Hugue- 
nots. Prof.  Weber's  warning  against  plutocracy  is  quite  sig- 
nificant, but  we  believe  that  Calvinism  will  adjust  itself  to  the 
demands  of  this  new  age  with  its  controversy  between  capital 
and  labor,  because,  as  he  says,  it  so  emphasized  the  idea  of 
stewardship  rather  than  ownership.  Calvinism  can  yet  be  a 
mighty  power  in  the  world  by  putting  back  of  the  Golden  Rule, 
which  is  the  motto  of  all  Christians,  the  will  and  power  of 
God's  sovereignty  and  God's  love,  which  have  ever  been  the 
two  pillars  of  Redemptive  Calvinism. 


APPENDIX 

TOPICS  SUITABLE  FOR  REFORMATION  SERMONS  OR 
ADDRESSES 

1.  Great  Characters  Among  the  Reformers  (their  life,  work,  influence 
and  example). 

Lefevre,  Zwingli,*  Luther,  Melancthon,  Ecolampadius,*  Haller,* 
Leo  Juda,*  Vadian,*  Bullinger,*  Bibliander  (the  Missionary 
Reformer),!  Farel,*  Calvin,*  Viret,*  Beza,*  Bucer,*  Lasco,* 
Ursinus*  and  Olevianus,*  Cranmer,  Ridley  and  Latimer,  Hamil- 
ton,* Wishart*  and  Knoz  * 

2.  Preparation  for  the  Reformation. 

Erasmus,  Lefevre,  Brethren  of  Common  Life,  Reformers  before 
the  Reformation  (Wycklifife,  Huss  and  Savonarola),  Renaissance 
and  Reformation. 

3.  Great  Laymen  of  the  Reformation. 

Vadian  (the  Reformer  of  St..  Gall),*  Admiral  Coligny,  Prince  Wil- 
liam of  Orange,*  Elector  Frederick  III  of  the  Palatinate,*  Elector 
Frederick  of  Saxony,  Landgrave  Phillip  of  Hesse. 

4.  Relations  of  the  Reformation. 

The  Reformation  and  History  (the  Re'formation,  a  World-wide 
Movement),  The  Reformation  and  Economics  (or  Society),  The 
Reformation  and  Politics,  The  Reformation  and  Art,  The  Refor- 
mation and  Literature,  The  Reformation  and  Science,  The  Refor- 
mation  and  Geography,  The  Reformation  an  dMissions.f 

5.  General. 

Lessons  of  the  Reformation  for  our  time,  The  sixteenth  century 
and  the  twentieth  century, — a  contrast  and  a  likeness.  Great 
Prayers  of  the  Reformation,  Great  Workers  of  the  Reformation, 
Great  Martyrs  of  the  Reformation,  The  Gospel  of  the  Reforma- 
tion (four  doctrines,  Authority  of  Bible,  Priesthood  of  all  believers. 
Justification  by  faith  (Luther),  Ransom  of  Christ  (Zwingli)), 
The  Spirit  of  the  Reformation  (revival,  self-denial,  conscientious- 
ness, activity,  etc.).  Symbols  and  Mottoes  of  the  Reformation.^ 

6.  Results  of  the  Reformation. 

Liberty  (civil),  liberty  (religious),  education,  experimental  re- 
ligion, world-wide  missions,  world-wide  business. 

*  See  "Famous  Reformers  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian 
Churches,"  by  the  author  of  this  pamphlet. 

t  See  "Outlook  of  Missions,"  December,  1916,  and  later  numbers. 

t  See  "Historical  Decorations,"  by  Rev.  H.  C.  McCook,  D.D.  It 
can  be  gotten  from  the  Presbyterian  Historical  Society,  Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

All  these  books  can  be  ordered  of  the  Reformed  Publication 
Board,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  or  the  Central  Publishing  House,  Cleveland,  O. 


DATE  DUE 


